ay ‘Why! I Believe 
‘in 

4 V7 he Virgin Birth | 
TOE 

ee esus s Christ 








= ER NR EM NC 
Cd = ’ - - - 
‘ 
\ 


S j te WILLIAM EVANS : | 
882423 | on 
rege ses 

) copy 2 Cee 


a ee 





<a" 


ES 
a 


res} 
he 
i 
* 








DR. WILLIAM EVANS 


is also the author of the following books: 


Great Doctrines of the Bible...................... $1.50 
What Every Christian Should Believe........ .90 
The Book ‘of Books... 2:.42..2.... 2 25 
Personal. Soul-Winning 233.2... sed 
How to Prepare Sermons........--..-...---25-5-2 17> 
Outline Study of the Bible........... hd eae > 
Book Method of Bible Study..................... SE fe 
The Christian: His Creed and Conduct...... ‘at 
How to. Memorize..6.2)2235145 es Ay he, 
Epochs in the Life of Christ ae Sg ace 1.25 
‘The Shepherd. Psalm. 3...:.:.23.-35 eee .50 
Why I am Not a Christian Scientist............ .20 
The 'Pentateuch:).10- 3 3 a ee 1.50 
The Gospels and the Acts................---------- 1.50. 
Romans and | and II Corinthians................ 1.50 
The*Comine King 4-2 a ee eee 41.50 


If money does not accompany order, goods will be sent C. O. D. 
unless otherwise specified. If books are to come by mail 
add 10% for postage. 


BIOLA BOOK ROOM 
Bible Institute, Los Angeles, Cal. 


Why I Believe 
in 

The Virgin Birth 
of 


Jesus Christ 


by 
Rev. William Evans, Ph.D., D.D. 


THE BIOLA BOOK ROOM 
Bible Institute of Los Angeles 
536-558 South Hope St. Los Angeles, California 


Copyright 1924 
Bible Institute 
of 
Los Angeles 


Printed in United States of America 


Preface 


These addresses have been delivered at noon 
hours in some of the largest theatres in the leading 
cities of the United States. This accounts for their 
popular form. They are printed almost as they were 
delivered. The author tried to make the addresses 
brief, interesting, and as scholarly as would be con- 
sistent with the fact that it was a noon-hour audi- 
ence of busy business men and women who were the 
listeners. Each address had to be packed into about 
twenty minutes’ time. | 


Somewhat the same matter, but in a little different 
form, will be found in the author’s book, “Epochs 
in the Life of Christ.” 


WILLIAM EVANS. 


Contents 


INTRODUCTION | 
Brief history of the controversy. Position 
of opponents and defenders. 
The Text of the Gospels of Matthew and 
Luke. 
Tue ARGUMENTS AGAINST BELIEF IN THE VIRGIN 
BrrtH: STATED: ANSWERED. 
I. The supposed “silence” of the Scriptures. 
If belief in the Virgin Birth is vital why are 
Mark, John, Paul silent about it? 
II. Joseph and Mary said to be the parents of 
Jesus. 3 
Claimed that they are so cailed without cor- 
rection in the New Testament. 
III. One human parent does not guarantee sinless- 
NESS. | | 
The absence of an earthly father- cannot 
issue in a sinless child. 
IV. Contrary to laws of Nature. 
God works only through natural law. 
Virgin Birth is a miracle, so impossible. 
V. The account is mythical and leyendary. 
The story copied from pagan annals. 
All heroes supernaturally born. 
VI. Scholarship against it. 
Is that a fact? If so, what would the fact 
mean? Claim is untrue. 
VII. Jtts a part of the Gospel narrative. 
Gospel story as a whole. No watertight com- 
partments. 


Introduction 


Opposition to belief in the doctrine of the Virgin 
Birth is not a recent thing. Already in the time of 
the Apostle John the belief that Jesus was born of 
a virgin was stoutly contested by many, among 
whom may be mentioned the famous Cerinthus. 
_And thrcughout the centuries since, there have been 
spasmodic outbursts of opposition to this doctrine. 

The present opposition, however, may perhaps, 
be traced, as to its beginning, to Germany, in 
1892. A pastor there, named Schrempf, refused to 
any longer use the Apostles’ Creed when performing 
the rite of Baptism, because it contained reference 
to the Virgin Birth. This refusal, naturally, aroused 
considerable sentiment for and against the pastor. 
Finally Schrempf was deposed, but not until a great 
controversy had arisen which continues to the pre- 
sent hour. 

Then, too, the modern critical spirit, with its an- 
tagonism to the supernatural, its evolutionary teach- 
ings concerning biology and the processes of life, its 
attempt to bring the supernatural into the realm of 
the natural, so that much which heretofore has been 
attributed to divine action, is now purported to have 
taken place through natural means—this attitude of 
mind is responsible also for the present status of this 
doctrine. 


8 THE VirGIN BirtH 


It becomes necessary, therefore, in view of these 
things, for the Christian who believes that the en- 
trance of Jesus Christ into this world was super- 
natural and that Jesus was born of a Virgin as the 
Scriptures so unequivocally assert, to consider anew 
his reasons for believing thus. He must be able to 
give a reason for the hope that is within him to 
every man that asketh him. 


More than personal reasons should be adduced 
for the consideration of this tenet of Christian faith 
and confession. Something more than the faith of 
the individual is at stake—the faith of the whole 
Christian Church is involved. For centuries the 
Christian Church has believed in this doctrine as 
one of the fundamental planks in her platform. 
Shall it remain such? Is it to be considered any 
longer a necessary article of the Christian’s creed? 
Is it binding on any man, ere he can rightfully call 
himself “Christian,” that he accept the doctrine of 
the Virgin Birth as fact? Can belief in this doc- 
trine be expunged from Christian Faith and Chris- . 
tianity remain unaffected in any vital part? Is be- 
lief in the Virgin Birth absolutely essential and vital 
to the religion that bears the name of Jesus Christ? 


POSITION OF OPPONENTS 


The opponents to the doctrine reply in the affirm- 
ative. They maintain that the foundations of our 
faith are not shaken by a refusal to believe in the 


oF JESUS CHRIST 9 


supernatural birth of Christ; that there were con- 
versions in the Acts of the Apostles and in the early 
Church, when the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was 
unknown; that men believed in the sinlessness of 
Christ and His redemptive work even though they 
knew nothing of His supernatural birth. The atti- 
tude of the opponents to this doctrine is expressed 
by the following quotation: Soltau, in his book, 
“The Birth of Jesus Christ,” says: “Whoever 
makes further demands that an evangelical Chris- 
tian shall believe in the words ‘Conceived by the 
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,’ unwittingly 
constitutes himself a sharer in the sin against the 
Holy Spirit of the true gospel as transmitted to us 
by the apostles and their school in the apostolic age.” 
Soltau, then, makes belief in the Virgin Birth a sin 
against the Holy Ghost. 


Reginald T. Campbell, in “The New Theology,” 
says: 

“The credibility and significance of Christianity 
are in no way affected by the doctrine of the Virgin 
Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a 
barrier between Jesus and ihe race and to make Him 
something that cannot properly be called human. 
Like many others, I used to take the position that 
acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of the 
Virgin Birth was immaterial, because Christianity 
was quite independent of it; but later reflection has 
convinced me that, in point of fact, it operates as a 


10 Tue Vircin BirtH 


hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith 
in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is that 
Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an 
uneventful childhood.” 


“Tt is a dangerous and fallacious dilemma that the 
idea of the God-Man stands or falls with the Virgin 
Birth.”—-Harnack. 


“Good Christian men may take opposite sides on 
this question without giving up that which is vital 
or cardinal to the faith. No doctrinal use is made 
of it (the doctrine of the Virgin Birth) in the New 
Testament.’’—Ropes. 


It is clear from these statements of representatives 
of the opponents to this doctrine that it is not only a 
matter of indifference whether we accept the doctrine 
of the Virgin Birth or not, but that it is a positive 
hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith 
in Jesus, and that it is virtually a sin against the 
Holy Ghost. Assertions like these force upon us 
the necessity of considering this doctrine of the 
Christian faith. 


PosITIONS OF ADHERENTS 


The adherents to the doctrine claim that it mat- 
ters much and affects Christianity and the Christian 
life greatly whether we believe in the Virgin Birth 
or not. They maintain that the life of Christ can- 
not be considered in a fragmentary manner, but as 
a whole. The Virgin Birth is but a fragment of the 


oF JESUS CHRIST 11 


Christian story, and the denial of it is but an attempt 
to rule out the supernatural from the entire life of 
Jesus. It is not a question of one, but of all the 
miracles, that is at stake. If we begin by denying 
the supernatural character of Christ’s entrance into 
the world and then deny His Resurrection from the 
dead, it will not be long before His sinless and spot- 
less life will be challenged, for a sinless human being 
in history is as much a supernatural fact as a Virgin 
Birth or a Resurrection. It is maintained that the 
Virgin Birth cannot be denied and the other facts of 
Christ’s life stand valid and provide a firm basis for 
faith and hope. The life of Christ cannot be con- 
sidered piecemeal. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth 
is a foundation stone and it cannot be removed 
without pulling down some part of the building 
with it. 





THE RECORD OF THE EVANGELISTS, MAT- 
THEW AND LUKE—THE SCRIPTURAL 
DATA FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
VIRGIN BIRTH 


“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, 
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ... . 
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: 
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, 
before they came together, she was found with child 
of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being 
a just man, and not willing to make her a public ex- 
ample, was minded to put her away privily. But 
while he thought on these things, behold, the angel 
of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, 
Joseph, thou son of: David, fear not to take unto 
thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in 
her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth 
a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he 
shall save his people from their sins. Now all this 
was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and 
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being in- 
terpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised 
from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden 
him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her 
not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and 
he called his name JEesus.”— Matthew 1:16, 18-25. 


14 THE Vircin BirtH 


“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was 
sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Naza- 
reth, to a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph, 
of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was 
Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, 
Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with 
thee: blessed art thou among women. And when 
she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and 
cast in her mind what manner of salutation this 
should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, 
Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, 
behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring 
forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall 
be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: 
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of 
his father David: and he shall reign over the house 
of Jacob for ever: and of his kingdom there shall be 
noend. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall 
this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel 
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall — 
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God. And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath 
also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the 
sixth month with her, who was called barren. For 
with God nothing shall be impossible.”—Luke 1: 
26-37. ’ 


oF JESUS CHRIST 15 


Considerable space is devoted by Matthew and 
Luke to the birth of our Lord; both testify that 
Christianity was introduced into the world by a 
supernatural event. More space is given by these 
evangelists to the account of Christ’s birth than to 
many other events in our Lord’s life, the Transfig- 
uration, for example. Those who believe in the in- 
spiration of selection; that is to say, that only those 
events, sermons and miracles in the life of Christ 
are recorded which are absolutely necessary for His 
manifestation to the world as the divine Saviour and 
Lord—will be impressed with this fact. Therefore, 
the fact that the Evangelists give so much space to 
Christ’s birth gives that event an important place in 
the Christian system. 

It may or may not be true that these two are the 
only evangelists who record the Virgin Birth of our 
Lord, yet it should be remembered in this connection 
that they are the only two that deal with the infancy 
of Christ at all and that they testify that the mode of 
Christ’s entrance into the world was supernatural, 
and that a miracle attended the manner in which the 
only begotten Son of God came to sojourn with the 
sons of men. 





THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE NEW 
TESTAMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 
MATTHEW AND LUKE, IS SILENT WITH 

REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
VIRGIN BIRTH 


Those who oppose the doctrine of the Virgin Birth 
say that if it were fundamental to the Christian sys- 
tem, such men as John and Paul, who have con- 
tributed so largely to the life and literature of the 
Christian Church, could hardly afford to be silent 
concerning it. The “silence” of these, and other 
New Testament writers, therefore, is used as an 
argument against belief in the Virgin Birth. 


But the argument from silence (ex silentro) even 
if true, can be made too much of. “The old claim 
of the criminal that whereas only two men saw him 
steal, and because he could bring one hundred that 
did not, hence he should be acquitted,” is now put 
forward as an argument against the truth of the 
Gospel narratives. We must remember, however, 
that silence does not necessarily imply ignorance, but 
on the contrary may be actual consent, particularly 
where there is no denial of the narratives which 
were already known to these writers. 


18 THE VirGIn BirtH 


If we were to treat the life of Christ on the basis 
of the “argument from silence’ we should be com- 
pelled to eliminate many of the events and incidents 
in our Lord’s life. 


THE Lorp’s PRAYER 


Let us take the Lord’s Prayer as an example: 
“Do you use the Lord’s Prayer daily ?” 
“Yes,” you reply, “I do.” 

“May I ask why you use it?” 


“Because our Lord taught His disciples to pray 
after the manner of this prayer.” 


“Are you sure our Lord taught His disciples this 
Prayer? What reason have you for believing it?” 
Our Lord never taught His disciples this prayer. 
These words never fell from His lips—that is to 
say, if we are to follow the critic’s “argument from — 
silence” as applied to the Virgin Birth, for only 
Matthew and Luke, the same writers who record the 
Virgin Birth, record the Lord’s Prayer. | 

Such incidents as the Visit of the Wise Men and 
of the Shepherds to the Christ Child, the flight into 
Egypt of Joseph and Mary and the Holy Child, the 
slaughter of the innocents by Herod, the return to 
Nazareth, the abode at Capernaum, the visit of the 
Christ Child to the Temple, indeed, not one single 
incident in the life of Jesus until He was thirty 
years of age would be true according to “the argu- 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 19 


ment from silence,’ for only Matthew and Luke 
record the incidents of our Lord’s life up to the time 
of His baptism. 


SERMON ON THE Mount 


The seriousness of rejecting the Gospel narratives 
of the Virgin Birth of our Lord because only Matthew 
and Luke record it and the rest of the New Testa- 
ment is supposed to be silent about it, would rob us 
of the Sermon on the Mount also. This would be 
a serious deprivation indeed. There are those who 
deny the inspiration and authority of every other 
part of the Bible but still maintain a faith in the 
Sermon on the Mount. Other parts of the Scrip- 
ture may need the defense of the theologian, but not 
the Sermon on the Mount. There are people who 
swear by every word that fell from the lips of Jesus 
as recorded in this wonderful Sermon. They may 
reject the parables, the miracles and the teachings of 
Jesus found in other parts of the Gospels but they 
hold tenaciously to the authority and binding power 
of the Sermon on the Mount. 


But according to the critic’s “argument from sil- 
ence,’ there never was any Sermon on the Mount; 
no such words ever fell from the lips of Jesus. The 
mottoes that adorn the walls of clubs, lodges, and var- 
ious kinds of societies—as for example, “Do unto 
others as ye would they should do unto you,” which 
is sometimes referred to as the “Golden Rule’— 


20 THe Vircin Birta 


these are false and have no authority to control the 
actions of men, for, let us not forget, that it is 
Matthew and Luke only who record the Sermon on 
the Mount. Mark, Paul, John do not. 


The same argument, therefore, which would in- 
validate the integrity and trustworthiness of the 
Virgin Birth accounts of our Lord would also de- 
prive us of the Sermon on the Mount. Are we ready 
to part with this wonderful Sermon? Surely not, 
at least not by any such foolish reasoning as this. 
Yet this argument is advocated by the critics as an ~ 
example of modern thinking. Alas for the puerility 
of such thinking! Can you imagine bright young 
men and women sitting in our college and university 
class-rooms imbibing such foolishness as this? Yet 
“the argument from silence” is one of the strongest 
put forth by those who object to the Scriptural nar- 
rative of the Virgin Birth. 


We should not forget in this connection that while 
it may be true that only Matthew and Luke, specific- 
ally, record the Virgin Birth, nevertheless these two 
Evangelists DO record it. And so far as we know 
there is no valid reason why their testimony should 
not be accepted, even as it would be in any court of 
law today. No valid law of evidence would exclude 
their testimony. What some theologians need is a 
thorough course of study in the laws of evidence. 
They would not then be guilty of such imbecility 
as is manifested in their rejecting parts of the Scrip- 


OF JESUS CHRIST 21 


ture, which do not meet with their approval, on no 
valid legal ground of evidence. They would be 
laughed out of any court today. 


SILENCE NOT FALSITY 


Even if it were true that Paul, Mark, John are 
“silent” (?) on the matter of the Virgin Birth of 
Jesus, does this invalidate the “speech” of Matthew 
and Luke? Away with such foolish reasoning. Be- 
cause Senator Fall refused to testify and determined 
to maintain an attitude of “silence” with reference 
to the senatorial investigation into the Tea Pot 
Dome Oil matter, does Fall’s silence invalidate the 
testimony given by others? Does his “silence” brand 
all those who did testify as liars and untrustworthy 
witnesses? Yet this is the kind of argument (?) 
put up by so-called modern scholarship. God pity 
“modern scholarship,” then, if this is a sample of :t. 


The Book of Esther does not mention God, by 
name, throughout the whole book. Are we to infer 
from this that there is no God, or that the writer did 
not believe in the existence of God? No; no one 
would argue thus foolishly; he would maintain that 
there is a reason why the divine name is omitted— 
and there is, and a sufficient reason at that. The 
Bible student knows that. 

No writer in the New Testament contradicts the 
story of the Virgin Birth as told by Matthew and 
Luke. Two writers in the New Testament distinctly 


22 THe VirciIn BirtH 


and unequivocally assert it. It may be logically in- 
ferred from the New Testament writers who make 
reference to the origin and supernatural life and 
works of Christ. Why then should we give up our 
faith in the Virgin Birth? There is no sound, log- . 
ical reason why we should. Only prejudice, bias, a 
distinct aversion to the supernatural, a worship of 
intellect versus faith—only on such insufficient 
grounds can the Virgin Birth of Jesus be denied. 

But let us examine somewhat in detail the sup- 
posed “silence” of Mark, John, Paul. 


(1) The Stlence of Mark. i 
Suppose we were to assign to two men the writ- 
ing of the biography of the late President Harding. 
To one we assigned the task of writing the late 
President’s life up to the time he entered the White 
House and assumed the responsibilities of President. 
The task of the other is limited to the record of the 
late President’s life from the time he entered the 
White House until the date of his death. Both 
these writers have accomplished their tasks. We are 
now reviewing the two books. Shall we find fault 
with the second writer because in his volume he has 
no reference whatever to the parents, the birth, the 
childhood and the early years of the late President 
Harding? Shall we say that the events narrated in 
the volume of the first writer concerning the late 
President’s life are not true simply because the sec- 
ond writer is silent about them? Certainly not. 


oF JEsuS CHRIST tay 


We would not be so foolish. We say the purpose 
and viewpoint of each was different. 

Why, then, shall we find fault with Mark’s pur- 
pose because in his Gospel he does not record the 
events connected with the birth or early years of 
Jesus? The purpose of Mark’s Gospel should be a 
sufficient reason for his silence regarding the birth 
of Jesus. Mark’s intention is to give an account of 
the life of Christ “within the limits of the common 
apostolic testimony”—from the baptism of Christ 
to His ascension (Acts 1:22). For this reason 
Mark begins his Gospel with Jesus as a mature 
man, thirty years of age. No genealogy is given. 
for Mark presents Jesus as the “Servant of Je- 
hovah,” and we are not particularly interested in the 
pedigree of a servant. 


But does Mark’s silence imply that he was ignor- 
ant of the manner of Christ’s birth? Because he 
does not mention the birth of Christ in any wise 
does this mean that he did not know that Jesus was 
born at all? He surely must have known about the 
birth cf Christ, for the early Church met at his 
mother’s house, and Mary was among the number 
who met there. 

Again, it is worth while to note that Matthew, in 
citing the question of the people regarding Christ, 
asks, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” while Mark, 
recording the same question, asks, “Is not this the 
carpenter, the son of Mary?” 


24 THE VircIn BirtH 





Jesus—Son oF Gop 


Helegenfeldt says: “Mark does not tolerate the 
paternity of Joseph, even in the life of the Naza- 
renes.”” | 

Mark introduces his Gospel with the statement 
that Jesus is “the Son of God.” He links Jesus with 
Old Testament prophecy, and in particular with the 
prophecy of Isaiah: “The beginning of the gospel 
of the Son of God according as it is written in the 
prophecy of Isaiah.” (See R. V.) No man can un- 
derstand Mark’s Gospel who does not see that the 
whole Gospel is based on the idea of the “Servant 
of Jehovah” as described in Isaiah. Is it reason- 
able to suppose that one who must have pored over 
the prophecy of Isaiah as did Mark, due to the na- 
ture of his Gospel, would be ignorant of the state- 
ment in Isaiah regarding the Virgin Birth, such for 
example as Isaiah 7:14: ‘Therefore the Lord him- 
self shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall con- 
ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im- 
manuel,” and 9:6, 7: “For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given: the government shall be upon 
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonder- 
ful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting 
Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of 
his government and peace there shall be no end, upon 
the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 25 


henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of 
hosts will perform this”? 

One cannot but wonder what Mark would have 
written in explanation of his opening statement that 
Jesus was “the Son of God” had he had time and 
had it conformed with his purpose so to dwell on the 
deity of Christ. It would certainly be interesting to 
know what he would have said about the manner in 
which God became man. 


(2) The Silence of John. 

We should not forget in considering the so-called 
silence of John that if the Virgin Birth be not true 
simply because John does not record it, then all that 
Matthew and Luke wrote regarding Jesus up until 
the time of His baptism was not true, for John 
makes no reference to the earthly life of Jesus prior 
to His baptism. 

We must remember the purpose of John’s Gos- 
pel even as we did that of Mark’s. John presents 
the divine and heavenly, not the human and earthly, 
descent of our Lord. Not Christ’s humanity, but 
His deity is the declared purpose of John, hence his 
Gospel begins (1:1) with the statement of Christ’s 
deity, and ends (20:28, considering c. 21 as an epi- 
logue) with an assertion of the same. The opening 
words of John’s Gospel are, “In the beginning was 
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God;” the closing words, “My Lord and 
My God!” 


26 Tue Vircin Birtu 


PATRISTIC READING 


There is a reading set forth by some of the Church 
Fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) of 
John 1:13 which is interesting in this connection, 
and while it may not be accepted unqualifiedly, it is 
nevertheless suggestive and worthy of consideration. 
John 1:12 reads as follows: “But as many as re- 
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the 
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” 
then follows verse 13: “Which were born, not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God.” The Church Fathers referred to 
claim that some manuscripts read, “Who was born,” 
instead of “Which were born,” thus making the 
phrase refer to the supernatural birth of Jesus rather 
than of the children of God. The passage would 
then read, “But as many as received him, to them 
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to 
them that believe on his name: Who was born, not” 
of bloods (male and female), nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” If this 
be true, then “natural generation by a human father 
is denied and excluded in the most categorical man- 
ners | 

Why may not both meanings be true? Why may 
not the supernatural birth of Christ be a type of 
the new birth of the children of God? Are not 
verses 12 and 13 part of the Prologue of John’s Gos- 
pel, and does not the Prologue deal with “The Word” 


OF JESUS CHRIST Lf, 


—“and the Word became flesh’? If the children of 
God are born again in a supernatural way why could 
not Jesus be born in the way Matthew and Luke say 
He was? 

Joun SUPPLEMENTARY 


It is agreed among theologians that John’s Gos- 
pel was supplementary to the other Gospels. John 
knew what Matthew and Luke had written regard- 
ing the Virgin Birth for he wrote his Gospel some 
thirty years after Matthew and Luke had written 
theirs. John was, therefore, thoroughly conversant 
with what had been written and what the Church 
believed. If what Matthew and Luke had written 
was wrong it was John’s duty to have contradicted 
it, and have so stated in his Gospel. 

But what were the facts? John does not contradict 
anything Matthew and Luke had written regarding 
Christ’s miraculous birth. John’s silence, therefore, 
under these circumstances is a confirmation of their 
narratives; silence, in this instance, being equiva- 
lent to consent. 

The bitterest enemy of the apostle John was Cer- 
inthus, the famous Gnostic, whose principal ob- 
jection to Christianity was the doctrine of Incarna- 
tion, which included the record of the Virgin Birth. 
Cerinthus taught that Jesus was the son of Mary by 
ordinary generation; that Joseph was the father of 
Jesus; that the Holy Spirit came on Jesus at His 
baptism and left Him at the Cross. In other words, 


28 Tue VirciIn BirtH 


that Jesus was just an ordinary man when He came 
to the baptism and an ordinary man when He died 
on the Cross. This doctrine John very positively 
denies in his first epistle: “This is He that came by 
water and by blood, even Jesus Christ; not with 
water only but with the water and the blood:” (5:6). 
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit 
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh 
is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not (or 
annuleth, i. e. separateth between Jesus and the 
Christ) that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not 
of God” (4:23). It would seem reasonable to sup- 
pose that John, having this knowledge, would have 
corrected such a serious blunder as that which Mat- 
thew and Luke had made with regard to the earthly - 
origin of Jesus—had such been a blunder. The fact 
that Jchn does not correct the doctrine of the Virgin 
Birth, which was firmly believed by the early 
Church, is proof that he himself believed it. 


Tue MotTHER OF OUR LoRD 


Must not the long continued residence of the 
Mother of our Lord with John have had a very deep 
and significant effect upon the author of the fourth - 
Gospel? Is it to be wondered at that he who had 
sheltered the Virgin beneath his roof should be the 
one to say, “And the Word was made flesh” (John 
1:14)? Is it any wonder that he who doubtless had 
had many talks with Mary regarding this matter was 


oF JESUS CHRIST 29 


the one who so emphatically denounces the one 
doubting the Incarnation? “Every spirit that con- 
fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of 
God. And every spirit that confesseth not (or de- 
nieth) that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not 
of God. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” 
So John attacks those who would both undeify and 
unhumanify the God-Man. “Jesus Christ is not 
God masquerading for a time in human form; He 
is God. He is not man deified; He is God human- 
ified.” 


Further, did not John owe it to the mother of 
Jesus, who lived with him from the day of Christ’s 
crucifixion until her death, to protect her from this 
calumny, and to repudiate the story of the Virgin 
Birth, if it were false? The silence of John indi- 
cates his acceptance of the fact. 


That John was thoroughly conversant with the 
birth of Christ at Bethlehem is evident from the 
reference to that fact: “Others said, This is the 
Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of 
Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ 
cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town 
of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 7:41, 42). 
The critics say it is evident from these verses that 
John knew nothing about the Virgin Birth. A close 
study of John’s. method of writing will reveal the 
fact that it is customary with the evangelist to use 
the objections of opponents (such as recorded in 


30 THE VIRGIN BirTH 


these verses) as convincing arguments of the truth 
of the thing referred to. To record some objections 
is to reveal their futility and show how they work 
in just the opposite way from that intended by the © 
objectors. 


(3) Silence of Paul. 

We are not so sure that Paul was silent on the 
doctrine of the Virgin Birth, but even if he was, 
that would be no evidence that he was ignorant of 
it or disbelieved it. He does not mention Mary the 
mother of our Lord in any of his writings. Are we 
to understand by this silence that he did not believe 
in her existence? It is true that Paul refers to 
Christ as of “the seed of David,” but that is no argu- 
ment against the Virgin Birth, for Matthew (1:1) 
and Luke (1:32) refer to Him in like manner, and 
they most certainly were cognizant of the mirac- 
ulous birth of Christ, for they record it. 

Is not Luke Paul’s gospel? It is so admitted by 
all scholars. Luke was the companion of Paul. Is 
it likely that Luke would be cognizant of so im- 
portant a fact and the apostle Paul not know it? 


ADAM AND CHRIST 
To Paul, Christ was the second Adam, the sinless 
One. He must have known that no clean thing 
could come from an unclean thing. To him the 
second Adam was from heaven, from above. May 
it not have been Luke’s purpose, in tracing the 


oF JESUS CHRIST 31 


genealogy of Christ to Adam, to show that He was 
the second Adam? as miraculously brought into the 
world as was Adam the first? Luke’s gospel is 
Paul’s gospel. Why may not Romans 5:12-21 and 
Luke 3:38 be one in aim and purpose? Logician as 
Paul was, he must have known that any ordinary 
mortal was subject to both sin and death and that 
Christ, being subject to neither, must therefore have 
not sprung from the first Adam alone, and in the 
same sense that other men have done. 


In Galatians 4:4, he refers to Christ as “being 
born of a woman.” May we not suppose that he 
had in mind Genesis 3:15, which refers to the com- 
ing Redeemer as “seed of the woman” and not of 
the man? It is true that Christ uses a similar ex- 
pression of John, “of all men born of women;” but 
the words translated “born” are not the same in 
both passages. Indeed Paul uses the word “born” 
three or four times in Galatians 4, but in speaking 
of Christ’s birth (4:4) he uses a different word 
than he does when speaking of Isaac and Ishmael 
(v. 23, 29). 

In that wonderful kenotic passage in Philippians 
2:5-8, in which Paul is speaking of Christ exchang- 
ing “the form of God” for “the form of a servant,” 
he intimates, we think his knowledge of the super- 
natural birth of Jesus, by his use of the word “was 
made” (‘“‘became,” “becoming” so R. V. M., the 
word being practically the same as that used in 


32 THe VirciIn BirtH 


Galatians 4:4 and meaning “becoming”’). The 
whole passage reads as follows: “Have this mind 
in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, ex- 
isting in the form of God, counted not the being on 
an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but 
emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being 
made (becoming) in the likeness of men; and being 
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, be- 
coming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of 
the cross.” 
RicH AND Poor 


In II Corinthians 8:9 the apostle declares that 
Christ “who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes 
became poor.” It may not be out of place to ask, 
When was Jesus Christ rich? Surely not during 
His earthly life, for He was born in the midst of 
poverty. The offering which His mother brought — 
to the temple was a pair of turtle doves—the of- 
fering of the poor. Jesus, Himself, said: “The 
foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but 
the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” 
Paul must be referring to the pre-mundane con- 
dition of Christ even as in Philippians 2:5-8. But 
could the apostle think of such a contrast without 
the thought of the supernatural taking place? We 
think not. 

In Romans 8:3 Paul speaks of Jesus as being 
made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ or “in the 
likeness of the flesh of sin.” This would seem to 


oF JESuS CHRIST 33 


intimate that although Jesus partook of true human 
nature and was thus identified with us, He was yet 
not one of us. The human nature of Jesus was a 
perfectly sinless one even as Adam’s was before 
his fall. 


Romans 1:3, 4, reads as follows: “Concerning his 
Son, who was born of the seed of David according 
to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God 
with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by 
the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ 
our Lord.” Let us couple with this Luke 1:31-35: 
“And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, 
and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 
He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the 
Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him 
the throne of his father David: and he shall reign 
over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his king- 
dom there shall be no end. And Mary said unto 
the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a 
man? And the angel answered and said unto her, 
The Holy Spirit shall come unto thee, and the power 
of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore 
also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called 
the Son of God.” 


PAUL AND LUKE AGREE 


A comparison of these two passages would seem 
to clearly teach that Paul was thoroughly conver- 
sant with what Luke had written regarding the 


34 THe Vircin Birtu 


Virgin Birth and was in hearty agreement with it. 
In Luke, Mary is to bring forth a son; in Romans 
Jesus is born. In Luke Jesus is to have the throne 
of His father David; in Romans He is declared to 
be of the seed of David. In Luke His conception 
is referred to the Holy Spirit; in Romans reference 
is made to the Spirit of holiness. Luke speaks of 
the power of the Most High overshadowing Mary; 
Romans states that Jesus was declared to be the 
Son of God “with power.” Luke says, ‘“Where- 
fore that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God;”’ Romans states 
that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God by 
the Spirit of holiness.” It is very difficult, there- 
fore, for the student of the Word of God to doubt 
that Paul was thoroughly conversant and in 
agreement with Luke’s account of the birth of - 
Christ. 


So far as we now recall, Paul makes no specific 
references to the “miracles of Jesus.” Are we to 
understand by Paul’s silence that he did not believe 
that there was anything supernatural and miraculous 
in the life and works of Jesus? 


INCARNATION MYSTERY 


Assuming that Paul is the writer of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews—and there is much evidence for such 
a claim, much more for it than against it—it is of 
interest to note that, in speaking of the priesthood 


oF JEsus CHRIST 35 


of Christ, he refers to Him as a priest “after the 
order of Aaron.” But that is not sufficient in the 
estimation of the apostle to account for the perfect 
priesthood of Christ; He is also “a priest for ever, 
after the order of Melchizedec.” By interpretation 
Melchizedek means “King of righteousness, and 
then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 
without father, without mother, without genealogy, 
having neither beginning of days nor end of life, 
but made like unto the Son of God.” Could Paul, 
think you, liken Christ’s priesthood to that of 
Melchizedek without thinking of the supernatural in 
connection with the entrance of Christ into the 
world? One would hardly think so. 


In 1 Timothy 3;16 we read: “And without con- 
troversy (that is to say it is admitted on all sides 
and without question) great is the mystery of god- 
liness.” Then the apostle goes on to describe just 
what this “mystery of godliness” is: “God was 
manifested in the flesh.” It is all the same whether 
you take the Authorized, or Revised reading: “He 
who was manifested in the flesh,” for the context 
shows that the reference is to the Incarnation. But 
what “mystery” could there be in the fact that Jesus, 
as the child of Joseph and Mary was born into the 
world? None; no more mystery than in connection 
with your birth or mine. But that “God should be 
manifested in flesh,’ that deity should assume 
humanity—well, that is “mystery.” Could Paul 


36 THE VirGIn BirtH 


thus express himself, think you, and not have the 
supernatural birth of Jesus Christ in mind? We 
think not. 

Further, in speaking of Jesus’ coming into the 
world, he says: “He took not on him the nature 
of angels but of the seed of Abraham.” But you 
and I have no choice as to what nature we _ shall 
take on when we come into the world. With Jesus 
it was different. He had the choice. He chose the 
nature of man because angels cannot die and He 
came into the world to die (cf. Hebrews 2:14). Had 
Paul no thought of the Incarnation when he wrote 
these words? 


THe SupPPOsED SILENCE OF JESUS REGARDING His 
BirTH 


It is claimed by those who deny the Virgin Birth 
that Jesus Himself never referred to his origin in 
connection with the supernatural; indeed, some 
doubt whether Jesus ever made reference to his 
birth or origin at all. Let us see: | 

First, we would question, very seriously, the 
statement of the silence of Jesus on this subject. 
Let us recall a few of the sayings of Jesus and see . 
if it be true that He did not refer to his origin: 


CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS 
‘‘And the Father that sent me, he hath borne wit- 
ness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at 
any time, nor seen his form” (John 5:37). Had 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 37 


they not seen Joseph and had they not heard his 
voice, think you? To what and to Whom then was 
Jesus here referring? 


In reply to His mother’s question in the temple: 
“Why hast thou thus dealt with us? Thy father 
and I have sought thee sorrowing,”’ Jesus signifi- 
cantly said: ‘How is it that ye sought me? Wist 
ye not that I must be in my Father’s house (or 
“about my Father’s business,” R. V. M)” (Luke 
2:49). It is said in the next verse, that “they 
understood not this saying.” It was strikingly signi- 
ficant. Joseph’s business was carpentry. Jesus was 
in the house of God and about the real business of 
His true Father. 

In answer to the cavillings of the Pharisees Jesus 
said, “I know whence I came, and whither I go; 
but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go” 
(John 8:14). “Ye are from beneath; I am from 
above; ye are of this world; I am not of this world” 
(8:23). “Before Abraham was I am” (8:58). 

In Matthew 11:11, Jesus in speaking of John the 
Baptist, said that “of all men born of women there 
hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.” 
But, if Jesus had been born of a woman in the same 
manner as John the Baptist, would He not be con- 
fessing to an inferiority to John? But the testimony 
of John is to the superiority of Jesus. Is there not 
here an intimation of a birth and origin different 
from that of John’s? It should not be overlooked, 


38 THE VirGIN BirtTH 


as is stated in another place in this book, that while 
a similar expression is used of Jesus (Gal. 4:4— 
“born of a woman”) as is used of John (Matt. 
11:11) yet the Greek words for born are different— 
that pertaining to John meaning a begetting; that to 
Jesus a “becoming.” 


Does the reverent searcher after the truth of God 
find no reference in these Scriptures to the origin 
of Jesus? And there are others that could be quoted 
did space permit. It is all well enough to say that 
Jesus never called on men to put faith in His Virgin 
Birth in order to be saved. That may be true; but 
let us not forget that He never called on men to put 
faith in His resurrection to be saved-either. Are we 
to argue against His resurrection then, likewise? 


WuHaT THE DiscipLES KNEW 


In the next place, it is purely gratuitous to say 
that Jesus never told the disciples about His Virgin 
Birth. How do we know He did not? Is not the 
critic here taking a dose of his own medicine? Are 
we then to argue from silence again? It is impos- 
sible for any one to say how extensive was the 
knowledge of His supernatural birth. Certainly 
Elizabeth knew of it. She may have told her hus- 
band. which is more than likely. Joseph, her be- 
trothed lover, evidently detected Mary’s delicate 
condition, hence his determination to put her away. 
What he detected, others may have seen. How do 


oF JESUS CHRIST 39 


we know but what the sneer of the Jews in John 8: 
‘*We were not born of fcrnication,’” was born of a 
somewhat common knowledge of the miraculous 
conception. Talmudic literature informs us_ that 
certain stories regarding the unlawful conception of 
Jesus were rife at that time. He is a very wise 
man—wise indeed beyond what is written—who can 
say how much or how little the disciples knew of 
the birth of Jesus. 


_Discteces’ LimirEp RECEPTION 


But, in the third place, supposing that Jesus had 
not told His disciples anything about His super- 
natural birth; would that be strange? See how they 
rejected his teachings about the Cross, and how they 
stumbled over the news of His announced death. 
Think you they would have received the news of a 
Virgin Birth any more graciously? Jesus waited 
His time to reveal things to His disciples. He gave 
them truth even as they were able to bear it: “I 
have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot 
bear them now.” So when on the Mount of Trans- 
figuration, Jesus told the disciples “not to tell any 
man of the vision until the Son of Man had arisen 
from the dead.” It would take the resurrection to 
explain what they had seen on the Mount, even as 
it took what they had seen on the Mount to ex- 
plain the resurrection. 


40 THE VircIn BirtH 


But the argument from silence, so far as Jesus 
is concerned, may work against the critics of the 
Virgin Birth, for Jesus, while referring to his 
mother, brothers and sisters, never once made refer- 
ence to Joseph as His father, indeed He does not 
refer to Joseph in any way. How about the sig- 
nificance of that “argument from silence”? If, as 
the critics say, we may argue against the Virgin 
Birth because of “silence” regarding it, why can 
we not equally argue against the paternity of Joseph 
from the “silence” of Jesus on the subject? It is 
a poor rule that does not work both ways. 

Let us not forget, however, that, according to the 
words of Jesus, the teaching of the Holy Spirit is 
equally authoritative with His own. “I have things 
to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now; how- 
beit, when the Holy Spirit is come, He will guide . 
you into all the truth. . . . He shall take of the 
things of mine and shew them unto you.” 


IT IS MAINTAINED THAT JOSEPH AND 
MARY ARE CALLED THE FATHER AND 
MOTHER AND THE PARENTS OF CHRIST 


This fact is urged in proof of the paternity of 
Joseph. Jesus is called “Joseph’s son;” “Jesus of 
Nazareth, the son of Joseph;” “the son of Joseph 
whose father and mother we know.” In Luke 2 
the following expressions are found: “the parents”’ 
(vie 2/7); “His: ‘father’ /and, his’ mother’) (vi; 33) 
“His parents” (v. 41); “His parents” (v. 43); 
“Thy father and I” (v. 48). Because of these 
references the opponents of the Virgin Birth main- 
tain that the Scriptures teach that Joseph was the 
father of Jesus and this without apparent con- 
tradiction. 

It is further maintained that Jesus is called “the 
seed of David.” He is of “the house of David;” 
“David’s seed;” “the loins of David;” “the son of 
David.” It is claimed that Joseph, not Mary, is in 
the Davidic line. Jesus, therefore, is of David’s 
seed through Joseph, not Mary. 

It is again maintained that the genealogies of 
Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus was 
descended through Joseph. This is said to be a 
fact admitted without controversy. This can hardly 
be true, however, inasmuch as it is one of the most 
controversial subjects of the hour. 


42 THE Vircin BirtH 


Our reply to those who hold the above objections 
to the Virgin Birth is as follows: 


Fact ADMITTED 


1. It is admitted that Joseph is called the father 
of Jesus and that both Joseph and Mary are referred 
to as His parents. It is pertinent, however, to ask 
in this connection, by whom are they thus called? 
It is by their neighbors, those who lived in Nazareth 
and Capernaum. But what else could they say and 
know? It certainly looked that way to them. Was 
not Jesus born under Joseph’s protecting care? Did 
not Joseph act as foster-father to the child Jesus? 
Was not Joseph’s paternal care thrown around the 
divine child? Was it not through Joseph that Jesus 
obtained His legal standing in the kingly line? We 
are not surprised, therefore, that Joseph was looked 
upon, even as Luke says, “he was supposed to be,” 
as the father of Jesus. 


Mary's SECRET 


The supernatural conception of Jesus was a 
secret; one which Mary did not parade. We are 
expressly told in the Gospels that Mary “hid all | 
these things in her heart.” If Joseph, her lover, 
intended to act towards her as he did by putting her 
away, how the cold unsympathetic world would have 
frowned upon her, when it, as Joseph, learned of 
her delicate condition. In words uttered later by 


OF JESUS CHRIST 43 


her own Son, she would not “cast her pearls before 
swine,” nor would she “give that which is holy unto 
dogs.” Why should she reveal the sacred secret of 
her life to an unsympathetic world which surely 
would fail to understand? So the secret of Jesus’ 
conception remained with Joseph and Mary. There 
was possibly one exception to this, namely, Eliza- 
beth, for she refers to Mary, at the time of Mary’s 
visit to her, as “the mother of my Lord.” Eliza- 
beth may have told Zacharias, her husband, but be- 
yond this small circle the matter was a secret. That 
the Shepherds and Wise Men, Anna and Simeon in 
the Temple knew that this was a wondrous Child, 
the Saviour, the Christ, and the Lord, there is no 
question, but they did not, so far as the Bible record 
goes, know of the supernatural conception of Jesus. 
It is not surprising, therefore, if the neighbors and 
friends of Joseph and Mary looked upon Jesus as 
their natural child by marriage. 


We should not forget, however, that only once 
does Mary, the mother of our Lord, refer to Joseph 
as the father of Jesus, and that is during the visit 
to the temple when she found the missing Child. 
But in what other way could Mary speak of Joseph? 
Had not Joseph exercised all the paternal virtues? 
Had he not taken the place of father to Jesus? Was 
he not the husband of Mary? It is very likely, too, 
that Jesus called Joseph “father” just as many an 
adopted child calls its adopted father “father ;” 


44 THE Vircin BrrtTx 


foster fathers, too, are called “father.” It should 
not be overlooked, however, that it is in this same 
connection that Luke (3:23) declares that Joseph 
was “supposed to be” the father of Jesus—he was 
not Jesus’ father in reality. 

It is erroneous to think, as has been sometimes 
stated, that Mary never anywhere expressed herself 
in a way to indicate her consciousness of the unique- 
ness of Jesus. One has but to refer to her words 
to Him and concerning Him at the marriage in Cana 
of Galilee, at which place Jesus turned the water 
into wine (John 2). There can be no doubt that 
Mary thought the time had come for her Son to 
vindicate Himself and to manifest forth His glory 
as the Only Begotten of the Father (2:11). 

Without straining the reply of Jesus to His 
mother, in the Temple, too far, we think it can be 
maintained that Jesus Himself bore testimony to 
His divine Fatherhood rather than to Joseph’s pater- 
nal relation; ‘““Wist ye not that I must be in my 
Father’s house,’ or “about the things of my 
Father?’ Was there not, think you, the intimation 
here of Jesus’ consciousness of the divine Father- 
hood? 

GENERAL TESTIMONY 


Nor should it be overlooked in this connection 
that while the people of Nazareth and Capernaum 
may have looked upon Joseph and Mary as the 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 45 


parents of Jesus, it by no means follows that that 
was the general opinion. In Matthew 16, we have 
the record of Jesus gathering the disciples about 
Him and asking them whom the people said He 
was. The reply of the disciples is significant as 
bearing upon our subject, for they did not refer to 
Jesus as the son of Joseph. The reply of the dis- 
ciples was: “Some say thou art John the Baptist; 
some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah or one of the 
prophets.” 


Again, when Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What 
think ye of Christ; whose sonis he?” the reply was, 
“The son of David.” There is no reference in 
either of these two instances to Joseph’s paternal re- 
lationship to Jesus. 


Jesus’ BROTHERS AND SISTERS 


Mary, the mother of our Lord, had other children, 
all, with the exception of Jesus, by Joseph. Did she 
make any such claim for any of them? Did any of 
them make such claims for themselves as Mary 
made for Jesus or as Jesus made for Himself? 
James, the author of the Epistle bearing his name, 
and who was “the brother of our Lord,’ made no 
such claims for himself. Another remarkable thing 
is that although James knew of the Virgin Birth yet 
he never in the slightest degree intimated that it was 
not true. He should have done so especially since 
his mother, the Virgin Mary, was still living. He 


46 THE VircIN BirtH 


should have saved his mother from the calumny that 
was heaped upon her by the enemies of the Christ 
and Christianity. But he did not. The inference 
is that he believed in the Virgin Birth. 

Had Jesus been the son of Joseph and Mary even 
as the other children why was He the only “sinless” 
one of the family? Surely none of the others were 
at all like Him. In point of fact had Jesus been the 
son of Joseph and Mary, both of whom were sinful, 
then, seeing Jesus was sinless, it would seem as 
though God HAD really broken the natural law and 
brought forth a sinless being from sinful parents. 
This, according to the scientific law of heredity, is 
an impossibility. 


INCARNATION INVOLVES VIRGIN BIRTH 


You claim to admit the Incarnation, but deny the © 
Virgin Birth. But can you do one without the 
other? If you admit, as you do when you ac- 
knowledge the Incarnation, that so unique and super- 
natural a person as Jesus was, can only have come 
into the world through an Incarnation, then why do 
you balk at the Virgin Birth? Admitting the super- 
natural in the one instance, why deny it in the other? 
“Because,” you say, “it is contrary to nature.” But 
is not the Incarnation contrary to nature? Is not 
the very existence of such a sinless, divine, super- 
natural Being as Jesus contrary to the scientific law 
of heredity as coming from two human parents? 


oF JESUS CHRIST 47 


How many children, think you, have been born into 
the world since Cain the firstborn child of the race? 
Billions. Has there ever been one among them such 
a sinless, divine, supernatural, unique Being as 
Jesus was? 

Jos—EpH UNNOTICED 


It is rather striking in this connection to note how 
in the Gospel story Joseph is completely in the back- 
ground. When the announcement of the birth of 
John the Baptist was made, it was to Zacharias, his 
father, but in the case of Jesus’ birth the announce- 
ment was made to Mary, his mother. Who broke 
out into singing at the birth of John the Baptist? 
Was it not Zacharias, his father? Who burst forth 
into song at the conception of Jesus? Mary, his 
mother. To whom did Anna and Simeon in the 
temple direct their remarks regarding the Christ 
Child? To Mary, not Joseph. It is Mary, not Jo- 
seph, who speaks to her Son. Jesus, in referring 
to His family, omits reference to a father; “Who is 
my mother, and my brother, and my sister? He that 
doeth the will of God, the same is my mother, my 
sister, and my brother.” 

The fact that Paul refers to Jesus as being of the 
“seed of David according to the flesh,” is in no way 
in opposition to belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, 
for both Matthew and Luke, who record the Virgin 
Birth, speak of Jesus as thus related to and des- 
cended from David. The Evangelists no doubt 


48 THE VirciIn BirtH 


have in mind the legal not the natural standing Jesus 
obtained through His adopted relationship to 
Joseph. 

Not JosEPH’s Son 


If Jesus had really been the natural son of Joseph 
He could not have been King, nor would He have 
any right to sit on the throne of David. Joseph is 
a descendant of Jeconiah. Listen to what is said of 
Jeconiah: “Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man 
childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; 
for no more shall his seed prosper sitting upon the 
throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (Jeremiah 
22:30); “Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning 
Jehoiakim king of Judah; he shall have none to sit 
upon the throne of David” (Jeremiah 36:30). We 
see from these two passages that had Jesus been the 
natural son of Joseph he could not, because of the - 
curse pronounced upon Jeconiah or Jehoiakim 
(both names refer to the same person), ever sit on 
the throne of David. 

It should be said further in this connection that 
there are very good grounds for believing that 
Mary was of the house and lineage of David. Joseph 
and Mary may have been cousins. They seem to 
meet in Matthat or Matthan. We are told in the 
Gospel record that “Joseph went to Bethlehem to 
enroll himself with Mary.” Evidently she too was 
of the house of David. Nor should it be overlooked 
that at the time of the conception the angel said to 


OF JESUS CHRIST 49 


Mary that the Child that should be born of her was 
to “sit on the throne of His father David” (Luke 
1:32, 69). This was the belief of the Early Church, 
Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and such scholars as 
Godet, Weiss, Edersheim and Andrews. 


Poor PrRoor 


In order to present any semblance of direct proof 
that Joseph was the father of Jesus, the opponents 
of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth have to refer to 
an old Sinaitic or Syriac Version, discovered some- 
what recently, in. which we find a reading of 
Matthew 1:16 as follows: “Jacob begat Joseph; 
Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, 
begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.” This Syriac 
Version, however, in the opinion of the best 
scholars, has no authority. The reading of Mat- 
thew 1:16, as here cited, finds no support in the 
older Syriac Versions nor in the earlier Greek manu- 
scripts. The editors of the American Revised Ver- 
sion, with all the manuscript evidence they had at 
their command, did not even think this reference to 
Matthew 1:16 worthy of a note in the margin. 
Hastings Bible Dictionary, which is one of the 
standard critical works, rejects this reading. Yet 
this is the only direct evidence that opponents of 
the Virgin Birth have with which to maintain their 
claim that Joseph was the father of Jesus. 


50 THE VirGciIn BirtH 


Two ALTERNATIVES 


There are but two alternatives to the denial of the 
Virgin Birth. One is that Joseph was the father of 
Jesus. This is the position held by most Jews, by 
Unitarians, and by some. professing Christian 
scholars. We have seen, however, that there is no 
conclusive or convincing proof that Joseph was the 
father of Jesus. 

The other alternative is that Jesus was born out 
of wedlock; that He was one of that unfortunate 
“bastard” class, such as were not admitted into “the 
congregation of the Lord.” Such a slander was 
current in the time of Jesus. Perhaps: others be- 
side Joseph had noticed Mary’s condition and so 
slander had been broadcasted. One wonders if the 
Jews of our Lord’s day did not have this in mind 
when they said to Him “We be not born of forni- 
cation.” Celsus, in the second century, made use of 
this immoral argument in denying the Virgin Birth. . 
It is also found in the Talmudic literature. It was 
reported among the Jews that Mary became preg- 
nant by a Roman military officer named Panthera 
(perhaps, as some one has well said, a distortion of 
the word “parthenos,” the Greek word for “virgin’”). 
This Roman officer is said to have seduced Mary, 
and so became the father of Jesus. It was with this 
sordid weapon that Voltaire opposed the Virgin 
Birth; so did Tolstoy in his work “The Four Gos- 


oF JESUS CHRIST 51 


pels” in which he refers to “the disgraceful birth of 
Jesus.” Professor Haeckel of Germany in his book 
entitled “The Riddle of the Universe” shamelessly 
makes use of this immoral argument. 

Say what we will, this is the alternative to be- 
lief in the Virgin Birth. But can we believe that 
the whole beautiful fabric of the Christian religion, 
with its splendid moral achievements, with its won- 
derful spiritual characters, with its transforming 
power in the lives of individuals, of societies, of 
nations, of the world—can we believe that He whose 
Gospel has thus blessed the world came into the 
world through the mire of lawless lust and the sin 
of an unchaste, immoral debauchee? Are we to be- 
lieve that Jesus was the son of an unchaste mother? 
There may be doubt in the minds of some as to 
just what constitutes the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
but we may ask in this connection if such a slander 
as this on the birth of Jesus does not come quite near 
to constituting that sin? 

Reader, may we ask you a question: “Who is 
that sitting by your side?” 

You reply, “My mother and my father.” 

“How do you know that is your mother and your 
father ?” 

“Don’t you think I know my father and my 
mother ?” 

“We are not saying you do not, nor are we saying 
that that is not your father and mother. We are 


52 THE VrrcIn BirtH 


asking you how you know. How can you prove it? 
Do not be indignant because we press the question 
and again ask you what proof you have that they 
are your mother and your father.” 

You say, “Don’t you think I know my father and 
mother ?” 

“Yes, we suppose you do, nevertheless we still 
ask you what are your grounds for believing they 
Ble fii 

In the last analysis you must say: 

“T believe it because my mother and father told 
me so.” ? 

So it comes to pass that you accept the fact of 
your parentage on the ground of thew testimony 
regarding it. What other proof have you? None. 
You may resemble your father; you may be the 
very picture of him, and that may have a bearing on 
the subject, but tell me, was any son more like his 
father than Jesus was like His Heavenly Father? 


A CHALLENGE 


Will the critic of the Virgin Birth tell us who 
was the father of Jesus? Who ever claimed to be 
His father? Joseph said he was not His father; 
Mary said Joseph was not His father; the angel 
Gabriel said Joseph was not His father; Luke said 
Joseph was not His father; Matthew said Joseph 
was not His father, and Jesus said Joseph was not 
His father. Will the critic please stand up and tell 


oF JESUS CHRIST 53 


us who then was the father of Jesus? So far as we 
know, nobody but God, ever claimed the Fatherhood 
of Jesus, and we know that God said, “This is my 
Beloved Son.” Joseph was a just and righteous 
man; the Church throughout all these centuries has 
looked upon Mary the mother of our Lord as blessed 
among women; the angel Gabriel comes from the 
very presence of God, in truth; Jesus was without 
sin; and God is not a man that He should lie. Shall 
we not believe the testimony of these witnesses to 
the great fact? 





THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT HAVING BUT 
ONE HUMAN PARENT WOULD NOT GUAR- 
ANTEE SINLESSNESS; CONSEQUENTLY 
IT WOULD BE OF NO ADVANTAGE 
FOR CHRIST TO BE BORN AS THE 
GOSPEL RECORDS DECLARE HE 
WAS—WITHOUT A HUMAN 
FATHER 


It is held that Christ could contract a sinful nature 
from one parent as much as from two, and that be- 
ing born of the Virgin Mary could not in itself pro- 
duce a sinless being. 

There may be a sense in which this objection is 
valid. The Virgin Mary while unquestionably a 
pure, holy and sanctified maiden, God-fearing, 
chaste and holy in her life, was nevertheless a sinner 
even as every other child of Adam. It may be that 
one part of the Church has made too much of the 
Virgin Mary by ascribing to her divine worship; 
while the other part has erred by paying practically 
no attention to her. The Scriptures are authority 
for the statement made by the angel that the Virgin 
Mary was “blessed among women,” and “highly 
favored of God.” Nevertheless, not believing in what 
is known as the Immaculate Conception of the Vir- 
gin, we still hold that she was conceived and born 
in sin even as the rest of the human family. 

We must not forget, however, that Jesus was an 
absolutely sinless being. Jesus claimed this for 


56 THE VircIn BirtH 


Himself: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” 
John, the apostle, says: “He was manifested to 
take away our sin; and in Him is no sin.” Peter, 
in looking back over the life of his Master, declares 
that “In Him there was no guile.” Pilate, after the 
scrutiny of a lawyer, three times declared, “I find 
no fault in Him.” Judas said, “I have betrayed 
innocent blood.’’ Even demons were compelled to 
keep silence when they testified as to Jesus being 
“The holy One of God.” 

The perfection of Christ’s character and life is 
conceded on every hand. The most microscopic 
and searching criticism of the ages has not been 
able to detect a flaw, much less a sin, in that spot- 
less life. Jesus stands today, after all the scrutiny 
of the centuries, the sinless One. Foster, the critic, 
describes Jesus as “The best we know.” Schmidt, - 
the rationalist, declares that “Jesus is inexplicable 
psychologically, causally, or by evolutionary de- 
velopment; that something derived creatively from 
God is necessary to explain the consciousness of 
Jesus.” 

It has been well said that “the moral character of 
every product leads up to and on to the producer.” 
The “product” here is the spotless and_ sinless 
character of Jesus Christ. The question is: “How 
was this character produced? Who was the pro- 
ducer?” 

It was Dr. Alexander who, in depicting the spot- 


oF JESUS CHRIST 57 


lessness of Jesus’ life, wrote as follows: ‘When 
One who walks the waves of life, never wets His 
footsteps nor His hair with one drop of its bitter 
spray; when One who preached the Sermon on the 
Mount, practically asserts, ‘I have lived it—the 
Beatitudes are my own picture;’ when He who had 
a higher ideal of duty than ever floated above the 
soul of saint or sage, tells the ages, ‘I will show you 
those splendid Alpine ranges and stand above them 
on a loftier peak;’ when He abides the scrutiny of 
the indifferent, of enemies, of friends, of Himself; 
when He can find no subject for confession, no place 
for pardon in all the retrospect of that crowded 
life—then we are in the presence of a unique pro- 
duct in the human family. It is a product so unique 
it may well have a unique productive cause. We 
may be more led to believe that no sinister bar of 
heredity is drawn across that white escutcheon. We 
listen with reverence at last when we are told that 
the Holy Ghost was the creative cause of His human 
existence, and that the altar of a Virgin womb was 
touched with fire from heaven.” 


SINLESSNESS SUPERNATURAL 


In view of the sinlessness of Jesus we are forced 
to ask, “How could a sinless being come from a sin- 
ful parent?” If, as the critics say, Jesus could con- 
tract sin from one parent as well as from two, how 
did it come to pass that Jesus did not contract sin 


58 THE VirGIN BirtH 


from his mother, that an absolutely sinless being 
came froma sinful parent? Is not this a miracle? 

Jesus said to Nicodemus: “That which is born 
of the flesh is flesh; marvel not that I say unto thee, 
Ye must be born again.” The holiest saint living 
must, of necessity, have been born again ere he could 
enter into the Kingdom of God. Was there ever a 
time when Jesus was not in the Kingdom of God? 
Was there a time in His life when He needed to be 
born again in order to enter into that Kingdom? Is 
not the very argument of the critic of this doctrine 
proof of the supernatural in connection with the 
birth of Jesus? , 

The sinlessness of Jesus is not attributable to the 
absence of an earthly father, but to the presence of 
the Holy Spirit in connection with His conception. 
The conception of Jesus was due to a specific act — 
of the Holy Spirit. Let us recall the quotation in ~ 
Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, 
and the power of the Most High shall overshadow | 
thee; wherefore also the holy thing (or that which 
is to be born shall be called holy) which is begotten 
of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 

The conception of Jesus, therefore, was holy and 
untainted. As Calvin says, not because “man had 
no part in the conception, but because he was 
sanctified by the Spirit, so that His generation was 
as pure and holy as it would have been before Adam’s 
fall.” 


THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE VIRGIN 
BIRTH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAWS 
OF NATURE 


The case may be stated thus: Marriage is honor- 
able in God’s sight; it is a holy estate. God has 
ordained that the normal, natural manner for the 
bringing of children into the world shall be through 
marriage. This means, divinely appointed for the 
propagation of the race, is both natural and suf- 
ficient. It should, therefore, be a satisfactory ex- 
planation of the birth of Jesus. There is no neces- 
sity to impose an unnecessary task upon one’s faith 
by asking him to believe that Jesus was born in 
violation of this divinely constituted law. 


It is maintained, of course, that ‘miracles do not 
happen;”’ that God never violates a natural law. 
Matthew Arnold said, “I do not believe in the 
Virgin Birth for that would imply a miracle, and 
miracles do not happen.” The so-called “modern 
mind” rejects the supernatural and miraculous. It 
must of necessity, therefore, reject the Virgin 
Birth of Christ inasmuch as it was, according to 
their way of thinking, “contrary to natural law,” 
that is to say it was miraculous. 


60 THE Vircin BirtH 


NEED oF PROOF 


There are a number of things to be said in reply 
to this objection to the supernatural birth of our 
Lord: In the first place, the burden of proof should 
lie with the objector. For eighteen centuries the 
Christian Church has believed the story of the Virgin 
Birth; the overwhelming majority of Christians to- 
day believe it; the Bible records it. It should take 
very strong evidence, therefore, to overthrow it. 
That evidence is not yet forthcoming. 

Further, can we say, even scientifically, that 
miracles are impossible? Huxley said: “The mys- 
teries of the Church are child’s play compared with 
the mysteries of nature. Virgin procreations are 
ordinary phenomena for the naturalist.” G. J. 
Romanes, the eminent scientist, said: ‘Even if a 
Virgin did ever conceive and bare a son, and even if 
such a fact in the human species has been unique, 
it would not betoken any breach of physiological 
continuity.” 

Nor should we forget that even in scientific 
circles such a thing as partheno-genesis, or virgin 
birth in nature, is accepted as fact. There is no at- 
tempt here, of course, to use partheno-genesis in 
nature as an argument in favor of the Virgin Birth 
of Jesus. It is sufficient to say that a virgin birth 
in nature is not considered contrary to nature, even 


oF JESUS CHRIST 61 


though it may be above it. From the scientific 
standpoint, therefore, a virgin birth in nature, while 
it may be transcendant, is not contradictory. 


ARROGANT PRESUMPTION 


But may we not ask if it is not somewhat pre- 
sumptious for anyone to say what God would or 
would not, could or could not do under certain given 
circumstances? What right have we to confine or 
restrict God in the manner of His working? Could 
He not just as easily create Jesus in the womb of 
the Virgin as He could create Adam out of dust? 
Why should it be incredible that God should bring 
Jesus into the world according to the accounts in 
the Gospels any more than by the ordinary evo- 
lutionary processes from the protoplasm? 


We speak of the difficulties of the Incarnation, 
but how do we know but what that was the easiest 
and most natural way in which God could become 
man? The supernatural in connection with the In- 
carnation is not incredible; it is inevitable. If we 
admit the Incarnation at all, why should we hesitate 
at the manner of the Virgin Birth? The greater 
includes the lesser, and the Incarnation should car- 
ry with it belief in the possibility of the Virgin 
Birth. Perhaps it is for this reason that John is 
supposed to have been practically silent with ref- 
erence to the specific mention of the Virgin Birth 
even though history tells us he constantly debated 


62 THE VircIn BirtTH 


with Cerinthus affirming the supernatural birth of 
our Lord. But to the apostle John the lesser was 
included in the greater. When the Incarnation— 
which was the main point at issue in his debates— 
was conceded, it was a comparatively easy matter 
to accept the Virgin Birth. 


If we admit the supernatural resurrection, at the 
close of our Lord’s life; if we admit His sinless- 
ness, characteristic of His whole life and as much 
a miracle in the moral realm as the resurrection is 
in the physical realm, why should we hesitate to be- 
lieve in the Virgin Birth through which Jesus came 
into human life, simply because it is supernatural? 
We admit the supernatural end of Jesus’ life, the 
supernatural middle of it, why refrain from the ac- 
ceptance of the supernatural beginning of it? 


A UnIgue EvENT 


It would seem reasonable to suppose that such a 
unique event as God becoming manifest in human 
form would be introduced with supernatural 
phenomena. “Once in the end of the age hath 
Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
himself.” Why should it be thought incredible that 
so marvelous an event as that which took place but 
“once” in the history of mankind should be ac- 
companied by miraculous features? The world has 
had many new beginnings. Each beginning was in- 
troduced by something of a specific and particular 


oF JESUS CHRIST 63 


nature. With Jesus, Christianity had its beginning. 
Why should we not expect something supernatural, 
therefore, in connection with the beginning of the 
Christian religion? 

It is true that mention is made of angels in con- 
nection with Christ’s birth. But is that strange? 
Do we not believe in angels? Did not Jesus say: 
“Think ye not that I could beseech the Father and 
He would send me twelve legions of angels?’ Sup- 
pose heavenly voices were heard upon the earth, is 
that something unbelievable? Is not science today, 
in connection with psychical and_ spiritistic re- 
searches, telling us of communications with the un- 
seen world? Would it be strange that at the com- 
ing of Jesus into the world the curtain which di- 
vides this world from that unseen world would be 
lifted for a brief while and heavenly beings be seen 
and heard by men? 

Was not the coming of Jesus a unique event? 
Jesus was no ordinary man and His birth was not 
an ordinary birth. If it were announced that the 
President of the United States were to visit your 
city on a certain day, what would happen? Would 
not the ordinary avocations of life be suspended for 
that day? Would not the city be decorated with 
bunting and flags? Would not the stars and stripes 
be waving in the breezes? Would not the fraternal 
organizations and different societies form in pro- 
cessions? Would not the bands play? Would not 


64 THE VirGIN BirtH 


the reception committee be at the depot to greet the 
President? Certainly. There would be extraordi- 
nary preparations. Why, then, should this not be 
so with the King of Kings when he came into the 
world? 

UnusuaL EXPRESSIONS 


The unusual expressions used to describe Christ’s 
entrance into the world indicate the supernatural. 
For example, Jesus’ words to Nicodemus were: 
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Except 
a man be born again he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of heaven.” Are we to understand from this 
that Jesus. being naturally born of Joseph and 
Mary, was flesh and was, therefore, at any time 
outside of the kingdom of heaven and needed to be 
born again before he could enter it? 

In Romans 5:12 we are told that “As by one man 
sin entered into the world and death through sin and 
so death is passed upon all men for that all have 
sinned.” Are we to understand then that Jesus, be- 
ing the natural child of Joseph and Mary, was sub- 
ject to death—not only physical death, but that 
more serious “death’’ which is here referred to and 
which is the equivalent of “condemnation,” “judg- 
ment” and separation from God? 

John, in speaking of the Word, says, “He was in 
the world.” There is nothing wonderful about the 
statement that Jesus, the natural child of Joseph 
and Mary, was in the world; nothing more wonder- 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 65 


ful than that you and I are in the world. But that 
He who made the world should be in it and yet not 
recognized by it—that is the wonder. 

Paul, referring to our Lord’s renunciation, says, 
“Who, although He was rich, yet for our sakes He 
became poor.” When was Jesus rich? Surely not 
during His life on the earth, for He was in poverty 
and in need during His thirty-three years on the 
-earth. When, then, was He “rich” saving when He 
was in heaven? 

Further, the apostle says, “Great is the mystery 
of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.” 
Whether you use the word “God” or “He” was 
manifest in the flesh, the context shows that “God” 
is to be understood. It would be no “mystery” that 
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary, 
should be manifest in the flesh, but that God should 
—well, that is mystery. 

In Romans 1:3, 4 Jesus is “declared to be the Son 
of God with power by the resurrection from the 
dead.” If by the supernatural resurrection Jesus 
was defined as the Son of God, why could He not 
by the supernatural Virgin Birth also? 

John tells us that “In the beginning was the Word 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God” (1:1). In 1:14 it is said, “The Word became 
flesh.” How could God the Word become incar- 
nate in human form unless by a biological miracle? 


66 THE Vircin BirtH 


Matthew 1:18 reads: “Now the birth of Jesus 
was on this wise.” Why the words “on this wise” 
if the birth of Jesus was not different from those 
narrated in the preceding verses? | 

In Luke 3:23 we are told that Joseph was “sup- 
posed to be the father of Jesus.” Why the words 
“supposed to be,” if he was really the father of 
Jesus? 

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to Jesus as the 
“second Man.’ Who was the first man? Adam, 
supernaturally created by God. Jesus is the second 
Adam, the Man from Heaven. Is there not a clear 
intimation here that the origin of both the first and 
second Man was supernatural? | 

In Luke 1, after announcing the conception of 
Jesus Christ the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “For _ 
no word of God shall be void of power.” Why 
should the angel say that if Jesus was the natural 
son of Joseph and Mary: No particular, specific, 
supernatural intervention of God is required in the 
natural birth of any of our children. Surely the 
angel expressed the supernatural i in connection with 
the birth of Jesus. 

Of course, if all one needs is a_ naturalistic, 
humanitarian Christ, then there is no need for a 
miraculous birth, nor is there indeed any need for 
supernatural intervention in any part of His lites 
at its beginning, the middle or end. 


oF JESUS CHRIST 67 


DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL 


It should be clearly seen that the denial of the 
Virgin Birth is not a question of the denial of one 
but of all the miracles. Those who deny the super- 
natural element in the Bible always deny the Virgin 
Birth. Logically they should deny the “sinlessness” 
and “resurrection” of Jesus, for these two things 
are no more supernatural than is the Virgin Birth. 
It is easy for those who deny the Virgin Birth to 
follow it by a denial of the resurrection of Jesus, 
and this is too often done. 

The whole matter resolves itself into the question 
of the attitude of the modern mind towards the 
supernatural and miraculous. Dr. Orr quotes Pro- 
fessor Keftan, the great German critic, as saying: 
“You claim to be applying historical methods, In 
reality your procedure does not have its basis in 
method at all. What lies behind it is the so-called 
modern view of the world which embraces everything 
in an unbroken, natural connection. This being sup- 
posed, the New Testament has been clipped down 
to suit, at whatever expense to the history, not as 
it is or was, but as it ought to be according to the 
broad supposition of our modern view of the world. 
The believing community will never adopt this mode 
of treatment; it will feel it to be apostasy from the 
faith; and this feeling which it has is thoroughly 
justified in the facts. The denial of the super- 
natural is not only admitted, it is openly flaunted 


68 THE Vircin BirtH 


and displayed. All this is settled beforehand. 
There can be no miracle; there can be no _ super- 
natural. It is settled before the investigation be- 
gins. Is this fair? Isn’t this intellectual dishonesty ? 
If we are too polite to call this manner of reasoning 
‘intellectual dishonesty’ we must call it ‘intellectual 
inconsistency,’ denying, as it does, the power of the 
Divine to enter into human life and history in a 
supernatural way.” 


To dismiss a priors the Evangelists’ account of 
Christ’s birth because it contains the element of the 
supernatural, is to set oneself up as a judge of what 
God can and ought or cannot and ought not to do. 
It seems to us as though this attitude of mind is a 
species of self-worship; it is a setting up of one- 
self as a judge of what God could or could not, 
would or would not do under certain given and ex- 
traordinary circumstances. It is to make a God of 
oneself. This is idolatry. 

It is certainly clear that the Evangelists consider | 
in their genealogical tables that no laws of heredity 
are sufficient to account for the generation of Jesus 
Christ; to them, at least, His birth was outside of 
the ordinary; it was as though by a “creative act 
God broke through the chain of human generation 
and brought into the world a supernatural being.” 
Why might there not be in the case of the last Adam, 
as in the case of the first, “no violation of a natural 
law, but only a unique revelation of its possibilities” ? 


THE MYTHICAL OR LEGENDARY THEORY 
OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST 


According to this theory the disciples were what 
may be known as hero worshippers. The more they 
came to know Christ and the farther away they 
were from Him the more wonderful He became to 
them. The impressions already made on them were 
deepened as the years went by. Gradually, yet in- 
creasingly, He seemed to them more and more won- 
derful and supernatural. It was customary among 
the heathen nations surrounding the Jews that when 
any one of their number, because of something 
wonderful or seemingly supernatural in his life or 
teaching, became an object of worship, one who was 
revered and deified, to attribute the wonderful and 
supernatural in the life of their hero to some mira- 
culous element in connection with his birth, hence 
arose the current beliefs of the people concerning 
their gods, many of whom were believed to have 
been of divine origin by the intervention of the gods 
with some human mother. Some such views, we are 
told, were held by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, 
and the Buddhists. _ 

Those who hold the legendary or mythical theory 
of the birth of Christ say that some such experience 
characterized the thinking of the New Testament 
writers. Increasingly they became impressed with 


70 THE VirciIn BirtH 


the supernatural deeds which Jesus wrought and the 
divine nature of His teaching. After years this be- 
came an obsession, and in accordance with the 
practice or custom of nations surrounding them, 
they attributed the wondrousness of Christ’s life to 
something supernatural in connection with His birth. 


A MobeErRNIstT’s VIEW 


In a pamphlet issued some time ago by a very 
prominent preacher, the story of the Virgin Birth as 
found in Matthew and Luke is denied. We find 
the following, which is a good description of the 
position of those who hold the mythical theory: “To 
believe in virgin birth as an explanation of a divine 
personality is one of the familiar ways in which the 
ancient world was accustomed to account for un- | 
usual superiority . . . that is to say, when a 
personality rose so high that men adored him, the 
ancient world attributed his superiority to some 
special divine influence in his generation, and they 
commonly phrased their feeling in terms of mira- 
culous birth.” In this way large groups of people 
in evangelical churches came to think of Jesus as 
coming specially from God, “but they phrased it in 
terms of a biological miracle which our modern 
minds cannot use.” 


This, in brief, is the position of those who hold 
to the legendary or mythical theory of the Virgin 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 71 


Birth. Accordingly the account of the Virgin Birth 
of Christ as related in Matthew and Luke is mythi- 
cal, pagan, heathenish, and not Christian. 

This is the way the critics state the matter: 
“Buddha, Zoroaster and others were claimed by their 
followers to have been virgin born, and every great 
religious leader is said by his followers to have had 
a supernatural birth.” This is simply not a true 
statement of fact. No pagan writers claim virgin 
birth for their heroes. The critics should not make 
such false statements; they add nothing to their 
credit for either veracity or intelligence. 

A point of importance in this connection is the 
statement by Maeterlinck to the effect that even 
though no pagan writer ever claimed virgin birth for 
his god or hero, nevertheless “the miraculous birth 
of Christ had been anticipated by Huf-Ke, who 
lived 3468 years before Jesus.” So it seems evident 
from this statement there were people that long ago 
who were familiar with “the old myth of a child born 
of a virgin.” Therefore the disciples did not borrow 
the story from prevailing pagan legends. 


CHRISTIAN DocTRINE STILL TRUE 


Because other religions have stories of the super- 
natural births of their gods and heroes, does that in 
itself invalidate the claims of the Christian religion 
with reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ? We 
think not. Other religions have their sacred books. 


72 Tue VirGIn BrrtH 


Does that neutralize the claims, worth and truth of 
the Bible? No. One of the main arguments for 
“the existence of God” is what is known as “the 
universal argument’”’—that there is in all men every- 
where some consciousness and knowledge of God. 
Does that universal fact make void the existence of 
God? Certainly not. Because the pagan nations of 
the earth have their religions, does that invalidate 
the truth of the Christian religion? Assuredly not. 
Why then should the fact that pagan religions at- 
tributed the greatness of their gods to something 
supernatural at their birth be used as an argument 
against the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth? 


Let us not be misled by the claim of those who 
deny the Virgin Birth that their position towards 
the doctrine is new and “modern.” It is neither; it 
is antique. Tertullian (A. D. 200) in writing on — 
this very subject says: ‘“‘God’s own Son was born 
—but not so born as to make him ashamed of the 
name of Son, or of His paternal origin. It was not 
his lot to have as His father, by incest with a sister, 
or by violation of a daughter, or another’s wife, a 
god in shape of a serpent for his vile end, trans- 
forming himself into the gold of Dunaus. These are 
your divinities upon whom these base deeds of 
Jupiter were done” (Quoted from Orr). These 
words show that not only were pagan legends 
known and filthy but also that they were not to i 
compared with Christ’s Virgin Birth. 


oF JESUS CHRIST 73 


In reply to this theory there are some things that 
should be clearly stated. 

In the first place, it is well to note that there are 
over a dozen “mythical” or “legendary” theories and 
no two of them agree. It would, therefore, seem 
almost unnecessary for us to spend any time in seek- 
ing to deny a theory held in such contradiction by its 
own devotees. 


LEGENDARY THEORY CONTRADICTORY 


There is also a wide difference of opinion as to 
the source or origin of this legendary theory; some 
writers claim it to be of purely Jewish origin, while 
others are very positive in their assertion that it grew 
in Gentile soil. 

Harnack, for example, says: “The belief that Jesus 
was born of a Virgin sprung from Isaiah 


Jian Se it» also “contradicts. ‘the’ earliest 
Christian tradition, which is free from heathenish 
myths.” 


Dr. Bacon, of Yale, says: “The basal fact from 
every standpoint of these chapters of Matthew and 
Luke is that they are Hebrew to the core. This is 
simply fatal to all comparisons with heathen 
mythology.” 

It could hardly be expected that such a legend 
or myth could grow on Gentile soil for it concerned 
a hated and despised Jew. Furthermore, as we have 
already intimated, the Virgin Birth narratives are 


74 Tue Vircin Birth 


absolutely Jewish in their cast of thought, setting 
and language. 

Others, like Soltau, say, “It is clear that belief in 
the Virgin Birth of Jesus would not have originated 
in Palestine .... It could not have taken its rise 
in Jewish circles .... The Virgin Birth was cer- 
tainly not inferred from the words of the prophet in 
Isaiah 7 :14.” 

Cheyne says: “The Virgin Birth finds its ex- 
planation in Babylonian influence.” 

It is maintained that such a legend could not have 
grown on Jewish soil for the Jews were not a myth- 
ical people. 

It is important to eriembe in- this connection 
that the Jews were monotheistic and not polytheistic, 
believing in one God and not in many gods. God 
was of “too pure eyes to behold evil,” therefore it — 
would be abhorrent to the Jewish mind to sanction 
any such relationship as is indicated by pagan leg- 
ends of the supernatural birth of their heroes. The 
incident in Genesis 6 concerning “the sons of God” 
who were said to have taken into marriage relation- 
ship “the daughters of men” is frowned upon, con- 
demned and punished according to Scriptural record. 


THE FALSE AND THE TRUE 


But, secondly, supposing there were such super- 
natural births in paganism, that would not invalidate 
the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In the letter to the 


oF JESUS CHRIST 75 


Church at Smyrna in Revelation 2, reference is 
made to a mock death, burial and resurrection of 
the god Dionysius. This service of the mock death, 
burial and resurrection of the pagan god was ob- 
served annually. The priest who officiated at this 
service received a crown. This is clearly referred to 
in this letter to the Church at Smyrna. It is inter- 
esting to note in this connection that the address of 
the speaker, the Lord Jesus, to the Church at 
Smyrna takes into consideration this episode in 
the pagan religious feast held annually in that city 
for Jesus said: “These things saith the first and the 
last, who was (became) dead, and lived again:” It 
is as though, in referring to the mock death, burial 
and resurrection of Dionysius, Jesus said, “I am He 
that really became dead, was really buried, and really 
rose again, no mock god am I.” 


We are referring to this matter in order to ask a 
question: “Why may not such pagan customs have 
been prophetic foregleams of the actual death, bur- 
ial and resurrection of Jesus. But such prophetic 
foregleams—if such they were—did not make void 
those real facts in the life of Christ Jesus, who 
actually died, was actually buried, and actually rose 
again even as the Scriptures declare. Supposing 
there are accounts in heathen mythology of super- 
natural births, why should such invalidate the truth 
as set forth in Matthew and Luke regarding the 
birth of Jesus? 


76 Tue Vircin BirtH 


We should not forget in this connection that Satan 
is a counterfeiter. Anti-Christ means not only 
against Christ, but in the place of Christ. May it 
not be that Satan, foreseeing the incarnation, had 
the denial of the Virgin Birth in mind centuries be- 
fore, and was preparing the way for its denial? 

Is there not, think you, an intimation in proof of 
the Virgin Birth in even these stories? Do they not, 
after all, show that men must and will seek divine 
origin as proof of superhuman greatness? 


LEGENDS TAKE TIME TO GROW 


Third: It takes a long time for myths or legends 
to grow, develop and come to a head. Reference has 
been made to the supernatural birth of Buddha. It 
should not be forgotten, however, that it took cen- 
turies for this legend to grow. It is doubtful if any 
reference to a supernatural birth of Buddha can be 
found in Buddhistic writings for at least two or 
three centuries after his death. Certainly Matthew 
and Luke could not have had any such incident in 
mind, for they knew nothing of Buddha, nor could 
they have known anything concerning him. There- 
fore they did not borrow their ideas of the Virgin 
Birth of Jesus from the supposedly supernatural 
origin of Buddha, The same might be said with re- 
gard to the reports of the supposedly miraculous 
births of Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao Tzae and others. 


oF Jesus CHRIST 77 


With Jesus, however, it was very different even 
from the standpoint of time. Jesus was great, and 
acknowledged to be such, even before He was born. 
The angel Gabriel announced such greatness and 
said that He would be a King sitting upon the throne 
of His Father David. The Shepherds and the Wise 
Men bowed in worship and obedience before Him as 
King. Anna and Simeon in the temple saw in the 
Child Jesus the Lord’s Christ, and they worshipped. 
During the lifetime of our Lord and in the very city 
and surrounding country in which He was born and 
brought up, among His neighbors and friends, and 
those who knew Him best, His superhuman great- 
ness was acknowledged. The world did not have to 
wait centuries before it acclaimed the greatness and 
superhumanness of Christ. 


The Gospels of both Matthew and Luke were 
written before the destruction of Jerusalem 70 A. D. 
and both record the supernatural birth of Christ. 
Lobstein, the critic, admits that Paul did know of 
The Virgin Birth, but that it had no interest for 
him. Paul’s last writings were finished in 68 A. D. 
It seems conclusive to many scholars that John also 
was thoroughly acquainted with the supernatural 
birth of Jesus. It is said that Burney in his Aramaic 
Gospel puts the date of John’s Gospel in 85 A.D. 

Thus, from the time of Christ’s birth, yea even 
before it, His greatness was recognized. We recall 
in this connection the words of John the Baptist 


78 THE VirRGIN BirtH 


when, in pointing to Jesus, he said: “I have need 
to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” in 
Matthew 3:14, and in John 1:26, 27,29 and 36, “I 
baptize in water: in the midst of you standeth one 
whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, 
the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to un- 
loose.” . . . “On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming 
unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sin of the world!” .... “And he 
looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, 
the Lamb of God!” Did not Elizabeth refer to 
Jesus, the unborn Child when she addressed Mary as 
“the mother of my Lord”? What further proof need 
we of the fact that the greatness of Jesus was ac- 
knowledged during His lifetime? 


PREDICTIONS REGARDING JESUS 


Another point of great importance for us to re- 
member is that none of the writers of the New 
Testament teach that Jesus began at Bethlehem. To — 
them He is the pre-existent Christ. The Jews in the 
centuries before Jesus came knew all about Him. 
The prophetic descriptions and delineations of their 
coming Messiah were minutely portrayed in the 
Old Testament Scriptures. In Genesis 3:15 we 
read, “and I will put enmity between thee and the 
woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall 
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel:” 
This verse teaches that the coming Redeemer is to 


oF JESUS CHRIST 79 


be human, He is to be born of a woman (cf. Gal. 
4:4). Genesis 12 declares that He is to be of the 
seed of Abraham. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael 
and Isaac. The Scripture is careful to state that 
the Messiah and Redeemer shall come through 
Isaac: “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Genesis 
17). Isaac, also, had two sons, Jacob and Esau, 
but in chapter 20 we are told that the Messiah is to 
come through the line of Jacob and not Esau (Gen- 
esis 25). Jacob was the father of twelve sons, con- 
stituting the twelve tribes of Judah, but Genesis 
49:10 tells us that Christ is to be born of the tribe of 
Judah, “For the scepter shall not depart from 
puidanyi.ss .'. until Shiloh come.” Judah was a 
tribe (or State) in Palestine. The Scripture again 
narrows the prophecy, and in Micah 5:2 declares 
the city in the tribe of Judah in which the Redeemer 
is to be born: “But thou Bethlehem Ephrathah, 
which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, 
out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be 
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, 
from everlasting.” Yes, but Bethlehem is a large 
city with thousands of inhabitants. Again note, 
please, the minute accuracy of the prophecy, for 
Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will 
give you a sign: behold, a (the) virgin shall con- 
ceive (is with child, and beareth) and bear a son, 
and shall call his name Immanuel (God is with us.”’) 


80 THE VircIn BirtH 


Had we time, we could show how the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures predict His betrayal by one who 
took bread with Him; the price of His betrayal, 
thirty pieces of silver; the fact that He was to die 
between two thieves, for He was numbered with the 
transgressors; and also that He was to be buried in 
the grave of a rich man, for He “made His grave 
with the rich.” It is clear from these brief sug- 
gestive Scriptures that Jesus did not begin at Beth- 
lehem. ; 

EXAMINING Isa1aH 7:14 


It may be profitable in this connection to examine 
the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. It is stated by the 
critics that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth grew 
out of a mistaken application of this prophecy. 

It is stated that the disciples believed Jesus to be 
the Messiah because of His wondrous and unique 
life and that the story of the Virgin Birth was in- 
vented to account for the superhuman element in the 
life of Jesus. In looking around for material to 
enforce this claim, Matthew lighted upon this pro- 
phecy of Isaiah, of which he makes a free use by re- 
ferring it to Christ as he does of the prophecy in 
connection with the flight into Egypt, the residence 
in Nazareth, and Rachel weeping for her children. 
We are told that the religious faith of the disciples 
was on the lookout for Old Testament intimations, 
and this prophecy in Isaiah agreed with their no- 
tions, therefore they applied it to Christ. 


oF JESUS CHRIST 81 


We are told that the disciples, remembering the 
miraculous birth of pagan gods, brooded over the 
idea that the mother of the Messiah was to be a 
virgin, and that when they found this reference in 
Isaiah to a virgin birth they at once applied that to 
the Messiah. Harnack says: “One must cherish 
serious doubt as to whether the idea of the Virgin 
Birth would have ever made its appearance on Jew- 
ish soil had it not been for Isaiah 7 :14.” 


It is a mistake to think that the ideas regarding 
Jesus, His person and work began with the Gospel 
and Epistles written after His death, or even with 
His own appearance and ministry on the earth. For 
centuries before He came into the world Scriptures 
had been read, pondered and taught in the syna- 
gogues and temple. “No young girl in Judea with 
womanhood dawning upon her but what breathed 
the prayer that she might be the mother of our Lord, 
and thus be most highly blessed among women, that 
from her should come the deliverer of Israel. Even 
from Eve’s time, who said, ‘I have gotten the man 
from the Lord,’ may such a longing be said to date. 
The life and career of Christ could easily be 
written from the Psalms and Prophets.” 

It has been reasonably questioned by some con- 
servative scholars whether Isaiah 7:14 was ever 
looked upon by the Jews as being Messianic, and 
hence it cannot be proven that Matthew quoted it 
because current opinion associated it with tha Mes- 


82 THE VirGin BirtH 


siah. Would not the story of the Virgin Birth, in- 
timated in prophecy, be a stumbling block to the 
Jews? Matthew’s apologetic would so indicate. 
Matthew’s treatment of the Virgin Birth of our 
Lord is polemic and in a sense apologetic. Joseph’s 
part in the narrative is emphasized to show the 
Jews that Joseph gave Mary and the Child his pro- 
tecting care and vindication, and thus not only vin- 
dicated the miraculous conception but protected 
Mary from slander and calumny. 


CLOSER VIEW OF PROPHECY 


A close study of the prophecy in Isaiah, which 
begins with 7:14 and is really not finished until 9:7 
shows that the prophecy does really refer to Christ. 
Whether the Jews ever looked upon this prophecy as 
Messianic or not is not to the point just now, for 
there are other prophecies, the 53rd of Isaiah for 
example, which we know is Messianic, but which the 
Jews would or do not, by any means, admit to refer 
to Christ. 


The context of this prophecy is instructive. Let 
us examine it. The prophecy, as we know, was 
made to king Ahaz, who was being sorely oppressed 
by the hostile armies of Syria and Israel which 
threatened to destroy his kingdom. The prophet 
Isaiah is sent to warn Ahaz against alliance with the 
king of Assyria whose help he has sought, and to 
assure him of the perpetuity of the throne of David, 


oF Jesus Curist 83 


which the invasion of these kings threatened with 
destruction. The fulfillment of this prophecy is to 
be in the nature of a sign. Something supernatural 
is to occur. Of course, there may be a sense in 
which the promise was partly fulfilled in the birth of 
Isaiah’s son, but Isaiah’s son was not named ‘‘Won- 
derful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting 
Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6—a part 
of the prophecy beginning at 7:14). It was not of 
Isaiah’s son that the prophet said: “Of the increase 
of his government and peace there shall be no end, 
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, 
to order it, and to establish it with judgment and 
with justice from henceforth even for ever. The 
zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 
9:7). That this prophecy (9:6) refers to Christ is 
evident from Matthew 4:14, 15: “That it might be 
fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, 
saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Neph- 
thalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee 
of the Gentiles” (cf. Isaiah 9:1, 2). 

It is characteristic of Scripture that it is so full 
that it does not exhaust itself in its application to the 
people to whom it was immediately written (cf. 
Romans 4:23, 24; 15:4). This is sometimes called 
“the law of double reference.” The destruction of 
Jerusalem was a fulfillment, but not the complete 
fulfillment, of the Second Advent of our Lord. In 
like manner, the son of Ahaz or Isaiah was a fulfill- 


84 THE VirGIN BirtTH 


ment, but not the complete fulfillment, of this pro- 
phecy. The prophet looks beyond the present and 
assures Ahaz that in a miraculous way God will raise 
up a King for David’s throne, whose name shall be 
“Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever- 
lasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” This pro- 
phecy Matthew and Luke rightly connect with 
Christ, who is the heir to David’s throne and whose 
name is Immanuel (Matthew 1:23, cf. Luke 1:32, 
69). 

It might be well to note in this connection the pre- 
sent tenses of this prophecy, for they may help us 
to see its prophetic significance. The prophet speaks 
of the conception and birth as actually taking place 
at the moment of speaking. The passage reads: 
“The (or better, one) virgin is with child and bear- 
eth a son.” The Hebrew original there would be a 
participle, and the exact rendering would be, “Be- 
hold, thou art conceiving now.” An immediate con- 
ception is meant (cf. v. 39, “and with haste;” the 
reference to Elizabeth that “she also hath conceived” 
indicates that conception had taken place with Mary 
at the time of the announcement by the angel, and 
this was before Joseph’s marriage to Mary). The 
reference that ““No word of God shall be impossible” 
or “void of power’’ would be senseless in this con- 
nection unless something supernatural and different 
from a natural conception were meant. Surely there 
would be nothing that called for any miraculous 


oF JESUS CHRIST 85 


display of God’s power in Isaiah’s wife bearing him 
a son, or in Mary’s conceiving a son as Joseph’s 
wife. The fulfillment of this prophecy certainly im- 
plied a sign, something supernatural which did not 
take place in the birth of Isaiah’s or Ahaz’s son. 


MEANING OF “VIRGIN” 


Further, there has been considerable controversy 
over the word translated “virgin” (almah). The 
opponents to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth main- 
tain that this word simply means a young woman of 
marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin; that an- 
other word (bethulah) is used for a real virgin. It is 
a remarkable fact, however, that this word beth- 
ulah, which the critics claim is used only of a real 
virgin, is actually used in Joel 1:8 of a bride weep- 
ing for her husband, while the word almah, which it 
is claimed does not mean an actual virgin, is used in 
this and six other places (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 
2:8; Psalm 68:26; Proverbs 13:19; Song of Solo- 
mon 1:3; 6:8) and never once in any other sense 
than as an unmarried maiden. Luther said: “Ifa 
Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any other 
passage of scripture “‘almah’ means ‘a married 
woman,’ I will give him one hundred florins, al- 
though God alone knows where I may find them.” 
Dr. Willis Beecher said, ‘““There is no trace of the use 
of this word to denote any other than a virgin.” 


86 Tue Vircin BirtH 


PAGAN HEROES AND CHRIST CONTRASTED 


Another important fact which is worthy of con- 
sideration in this regard is that the lives of the pagan 
heroes, whose births are likened to that of Christ, 
were not in any wise characterized by supernatural 
words, claims or actions. The life of Jesus Christ, 
however, was filled with the supernatural. He 
cleansed the leper; He stilled the storm; He fed the 
hungry multitudes miraculously; He walked on the 
water; and He raised the dead. Did any of these 
pagan heroes perform any such wonderful works? 
No, they did not. There was nothing of a super- 
natural nature in their words or works that called 
for a supernatural birth. The life of Jesus, how- 
ever, was so unique and different that it might well 
demand a miraculous entrance into the world. Nor 
did any great pagan teacher make divine claims such 
as Christ made, nor assume the prerogatives of 
deity. The birth and life of Jesus, therefore, are 
consistent. The supernatural life requires the mir- 
aculous birth. The birth explains the life. 

Fifth: Do pagan legends really record Virgin 
births? Will the critic please point to one single in- 
stance in pagan records of a virgin birth like unto 
that of our Lord? Is it not time to ask those who 
deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord and liken His en- 
trance into the world to that of some pagan gods, 
either to produce evidence or forever hold their 
peace? 


oF JESUS CHRIST 87 


No PAGAN VIRGIN BIRTHS 


It may be interesting to examine some of the so- 
called virgin births of pagan gods. Take the Buddha 
story, for example. The mother of Buddha, who 
was a married woman, is said to have had a vision 
in her sleep. She dreamed she saw a white elephant 
with six tusks. This elephant forcibly entered her 
side. Ten months later her child, Buddha, was born. 

The pagan god Zeus, unabashed, tells us that he 
had improper, forced relations with a maiden and in 
order to accomplish this relationship he transformed 
himself into a serpent. 

The emperors Augustus and Alexander are said 
to have been supernaturally born. Let us listen to 
the story. Alexander was very anxious that the 
world should know him not as the ordinary son of 
Philip but as one supernaturally born. He claimed 
that he was begotten by a serpent cohabiting with 
his mother. The story of Augustus is very similar. 
It is said that while his mother was asleep in the 
temple of Apollo she was visited by a god in the 
form of a serpent, and that ten months after her 
son, Augustus, was born. 

Is it not disgraceful and shameful for so-called 
Christian men to make any comparison between the 
pure, sweet Virgin Birth of Christ and these pagan 
stories of lustful gods forcing innocent victims, sub- 
jecting them to their passion and lust? Again we 
say, it may be difficult to define just exactly what 


88 Tue Vircin BirtH 


constitutes “The sin against the Holy Ghost,” and 
it may be that of attributing the power of Christ to 
Satan instead of the Holy Spirit, to a large extent 
constitutes that sin. When, however, one reads such 
stories as these just narrated he cannot but feel that 
such comparisons come very close to committing the 
sin against the Holy Ghost. 

Furthermore, so far as we know there is not a 
single pagan writer who ever claimed a virgin birth 
for his hero. These writers may claim that their 
heroes were born of the gods. We have seen in 
what manner. But the records nowhere show or > 
claim virgin births. 

Dr. Orr draws attention to a volume entitled “The 
Message of Buddha’ written by Subharda Bhikkhu 
and edited by I. E. Ellam, General Secretary of the 
Buddhist Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Our 
attention is drawn to the fact that this writer makes 
no claim for the virgin birth of Buddha. Had there 
been any such tradition in any, of the ancient writ- 
ings surely this author would have known of it and 
would not have omitted reference to it. 

We close this section with a challenge: Let those 
who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord by asserting 
that pagan heroes were similarly born, produce their 
proof or else as honest sincere seekers after truth, 
forever cease to refer to the Virgin Birth as a myth 
or legend. 


THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE 
SCHOLARSHIP OF THE DAY IS AGAINST 
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE 
OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH 


This would not prove anything even if it were 
true. Scholarship cannot save the world. The 
world by its wisdom knows not God. On one 
occasion Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of 
heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things 
from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal 
them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25 R. V.). 

Unregenerated and unsanctified scholarship has 
no place or authority in the realm of Scripture 
interpretation. Sir Oliver Lodge has been criticized 
by a noted professor in connection with his lectures 
throughout this country on “Spiritism.” The pro- 
fessor claims that the world’s most noted scientist 
is not an authority in the matter on which he speaks 
pertaining to “Spiritism.” He is said to be dabbling 
in matters that are “outside of his sphere.” “Spirit- 
ism’”’ belongs to the realm of the “psychologist”, not 
to that of the “physicist.” Sir Oliver Lodge is a 
“physicist” and therefore has no authority to speak 
of matters pertaining to “psychology.” The eminent 
physicist is politely asked to step aside and let the 
psychologist speak. He alone knows. Exit Sir 
Oliver. 


90 THE Vircin BirtH 


EDISON AND Forp 


The newspapers, a little while ago, made mention 
of “What Edison thinks about the Bible,” and again, 
later, “What Ford thinks about God.” Well, with 
all due respect to these eminent gentlemen, we may 
well ask: What does Edison know about “Religion,” 
or Ford about “God”? Edison can make a “Vic- 
trola” and Ford can produce an auto, but neither of 
these gentlemen have any right whatever to speak 
authoritatively about God or religion, for neither of 
them are Christians so far as we know; indeed they 
make no profession of being such. How can men 
“dead in trespasses and sins,’ and unrenewed by 
the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit of God 
speak of matters pertaining to the Spirit? Only 
those who are spiritually-minded can understand the 
Bible: “The natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; 
neither can he know them for they are spiritually 
discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). 


CHANGING SCHOLARSHIP 


Furthermore, scholarship is constantly changing 
its findings and conclusions. Listen to this: The 
head of the department of philosophy in a leading 
university of the East, said to a friend of mine, who 
repeated it to me: “Religion, so far as the facts are 
concerned, is not so much an evolution as a degen- 
eration. I believe the time has come when the’ 


oF JESUS CHRIST 91 


theory of evolution no longer adequately explains 
the facts of religion. . . . All great scientists 
practically agree that there has been no evolution in 
the body or intellect of man in historic time; on the 
contrary there has been both physical and mental ar- 
rest rather in man in historic time. . . . The 
only possible line of evolution is social evolution, 
such as takes place in sociological and domestic con- 
ditions and relations.” This is a great confession 
for a scholar to make. And it shows quite a marked 
change in position towards evolution from that 
accepted and taught a few years ago. Probably 
none will be found to disagree with this kind of 
evolution. | 


But it is not true that the scholarship of the world 
is against the acceptance of the doctrine of the Vir- 
gin Birth. Dr. Orr lines up the following scholars 
as believing in this doctrine: Tholuck, Lange, Luth- 
ardt, Delitzsch, Rothe, Dorner, Mortensen, Osterzee, 
Godet. Were Bishops Lightfoot and Wescott 
scholars? Are Dr. Sanday of Oxford and Dr. 
Sweet of Cambridge not among the finest Greek 
scholars in the world today? How about Principal 
Fairbairn of Warfield, Oxford? Is he not a scholar 
and thinker? Are not Sir William Ramsay of Aber- 
deen, Bishop Gore, Canon Ottley, Dr. Robert Dick 
Wilson, and Margoliouth, scholars of the first order? 
Was not Dr. Orr himself one of the best scholars of 
the day? In view of these facts, then, it is untrue to 


92 THE VirGIN BirtTH 


say that the scholarship of the day is against the 
acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. The 
contrary is true. The Wise Men of the East have 
been followed by the wise men of the West; brainy 
men have come to the manger to worship the King. 


FAITH AND MYSTERY 


We should not forget that in the realm of Chris- 
tian truth, faith, rather than knowledge, is the ve- 
hicle for the reception of that truth. We are not 
claiming that faith is contrary to reason or intellect, 
but it is ofttimes above it. The Christian is called 
upon again and again to apprehend things he may not 
be able to comprehend. | 


5] 


The word “mystery” in the Bible is of particular 
interest in this connection. It is an important word 
in the New Testament and one which the Christian 
should understand. A “mystery,” in the New Testa- 
ment sense, is something which has been hidden for 
ages but now made known and revealed. Yet that 
definition is incomplete. Three other words are 
needed to clear it up, for the strange thing about 
the New Testament mystery is that although it is 
revealed it is yet hidden and concealed. The three 
words needed to explain mystery are—‘to His 
saints.” It can readily be seen, therefore, that the 
mystery may be objectively revealed and yet sub- 
jectively concealed; it may be outward and yet not 
inward. Just as each morning you have a two-fold 


oF JESuS CHRIST 93 


revelation and revealing: there is the unveiling of 
the sun and the unveiling of your eyes which all 
through the night have been shut. 

Without the opening of your eyes the unveiling of 
the sun is nothing. So is it with regard to the mys- 
tery of God in relation to the saints and the world. 
The Christian has a subjective illumination by the 
indwelling Holy Spirit which enables him to under- 
stand the objective revelation in the Word of God. 

This is a dispensation of mystery. It is an age of 
faith and not of signs. All the facts of Christ’s life 
are received by faith. The world never saw Jesus 
after the crucifixion. The disciples did not see Him 
after He ascended. He went behind the veil, and be- 
hind that veil all the great facts of our redemption 
are going on. There hangs that thick veil; no man 
can penetrate it, no human mind is skillful enough, 
brilliant enough, keen enough to see beyond or 
through it. All that transpires behind it is mystery. 
But God has sent His Holy Spirit from behind that 
veil to reveal what is transpiring behind it to those 
who are illumined by His Spirit. Only such illum- 
ined ones can understand these things. It is the eye 
of faith that sees them. The revelation is “to His 
saints.” ; 

Some day the world will see with the eye, for 
Jesus will come from behind that veil, and then woe 
be to those who have walked only by sight. The 
world may laugh now at what is calls “blind faith;” 


94 THE VirGIn BirtH 


it may pity the Christian for believing in the Word 
of God and taking with simple faith things the in- 
tellect may not always be able to comprehend, but 
“he laughs best who laughs last.” Some day “the 
mystery of God will be finished” and He will come 
from behind that veil. How sad then will be the lot 
of those who have not let His Spirit reveal to them 
His will by faith. Then will be an age not of faith 
but of signs. Then the eye shall see, the ear hear, 
the hand feel; but, alas, who, except those that be 
of faith, shall be able to abide that day? 


If it is a matter then of believing the simple, 
naked Word of God and letting the Spirit reveal the 
mysteries rather than believing and receiving only 
what mere intellectualism can grasp, then I choose 
faith. Call it blind faith if you will, but I choose it 
until He comes from behind that veil. 


NEED OF CONSISTENCY 


Even “scholarship” accepts many things “by 
faith.” Does Science refuse to believe in the law of 
gravitation simply because it cannot understand it? 
Does it refuse to use electricity because it is not 
able to explain what electricity is? Do scholars and 
scientists refuse to “sleep” simply because they can- 
not explain the mystery of sleep? Our span of life 
is said to be seventy years. Twenty-three of them 
are spent in sleep. Yet “sleep” is a “mystery;” no 
scientist can explain it. 


oF JEsuS CHRIST 95 


Why should the Christian be looked upon as be- 
ing “unscientific” and “unscholarly” because he be- 
lieves an event in the spiritual realm which he cannot 
explain, any more than the scientist who believes in 
gravitation and electricity even though he is not able 
to explain either of them. “Consistency is a jewel.” 





any 


a" See 4f 


ts a tee 


Lats ‘ cays rhs 


' SPRAY 
ae ae 4 ine are td thal 


vie aT wait ‘genta 







ee 


Ge ae pa fet 


THE VIRGIN BIRTH IS A PART OF THE GOS8- 
PEL NARRATIVE AND IS TO BE RE- 
CEIVED EQUALLY WITH OTHER PARTS 
OF THE EVANGELICAL STORY 


The critics of the Virgin Birth may say we have 
only two accounts of the Virgin Birth in the New 
Testament. This is true so far as specific mention is 
concerned. But let us not forget that there are two 
accounts. We are dealing now not with the silence, 
but with the speech of the Scriptures regarding the 
supernatural birth of Jesus the Christ. We have 
four Gospel records, two of which record the Virgin 
Birth. For certain legitimate reasons the other two 
do not specifically or by name refer to it. 

We should not forget, however, in this connection, 
that if we dispense with the accounts of Matthew and 
Luke we have no record whatever of the first thirty 
years of the life of Jesus—no record of any event in 
that wonderful life until His baptism at the Jordan. 
We have no basis for dating our letters A. D. if we 
eliminate the accounts of Matthew and Luke. 


VircIN BirtH Atways BELIEVED 


These two records of the supernatural birth of 
Jesus Christ have always been a part of the evan- 
gelical narrative. There is not a recognized author- 
itative complete manuscript of the Gospels which 


98 THE Vircin Birt ~ 


does not contain these accounts of the Virgin Birth. 
We have such manuscripts which omit the story of 
the “Woman taken in adultery” (John 9), also the 
last few verses (9-17) of the Gospel of Mark. You 
will find both these paragraphs in the American Re- 
vised Version with a marginal note attached. There 
is, however, no instance of the omission of the re- 
cord of Christ’s birth from any unmutilated manu- 
script of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 


All the Versions of the Scriptures, in whatever 
language they may have been written or printed, 
contain the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. 
For eighteen hundred years the Christian Church 
has accepted these narratives at their face value. 
In the second century belief in the Virgin Birth of 
Jesus Christ was considered a test of orthodoxy. 


Such scholars of the early Church as Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Clement, although 
men of strong minds and differing in some other 
points of doctrine, were of one mind with regard 
to the acceptance of the Virgin Birth. 


Must Accept BIBLE AS A WHOLE 


So we have two trustworthy, independent and de- 
pendable witnesses to the Virgin Birth of Jesus. We 
accept as historical and true to fact other instances 
narrated by these two Evangelists, such as the date 
of Herod’s reign, and the census under Quirinius.’ 
Sir William Ramsay, the famous British scholar, 


OF JESUS CHRIST 99 


vouches for the accuracy of these historical and po- 
litical facts. Why then should we hesitate to accept 
what Matthew and Luke have to say about the super- 
natural birth of Jesus? If these two inspired ac- 
counts are not trustworthy, then no part of the Gos- 
pel or even the New Testament is worthy of our 
trust. Even Strauss, the noted skeptic, said, “The 
New Testament must be accepted as a whole, mir- 
acles and all, or else the whole is mythical.” It was 
Augustine, the great Church Father, who in speaking 
of the Virgin Birth, said, “In contending for this 
truth we are contending for our all.””’ The Gospel 
records are not like a ship with air-tight compart- 
ments such as characterize the make-up of our 
modern war-ships. You may shoot a hole in one 
compartment, but the ship remains afloat; a shell 
may pierce another compartment, but the ship still 
remains afloat. There are many compartments, and 
each is air-tight and separate. The Bible is not like 
that. The trustworthiness of the Sacred Record 
rises or falls as a whole. 


What grounds have we, for example, for not ac- 
cepting the record of Christ’s birth as given us by 
Luke? Was Luke an incompetent, dishonest his- 
torian? Was he a liar and a forger? Sir William 
Ramsay declares that “Luke was a historian of the 
very highest order.” Luke was a physician, a 
scholar, and a scientist. Luke knew all about births, 
for he had brought many children into the world, 


100 THE VirGIN BirTH 


and we may depend upon it that he did not quickly 
accept the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus. 
He doubtless talked with Mary herself, with James 
the brother of our Lord, and with others concerning 
the matter. The care with which he gathered his 
material is indicated in the opening verses of his 
Gospel, (1:1-4) which read as follows: ‘“Foras- 
much as many have taken in hand to draw up a nar- 
rative concerning those matters which have been ful- 
filled (fully established) among us, even as they 
delivered them unto us, who from the beginning 
were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it 
seemed good to me also, having traced the course of 
all things accurately from the first (that is, from 
original sources, or, as the Greek word may inti- 
mate, even by inspiration from above), to write unto 
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou 
mightest know the certainty concerning the things 
(or words) wherein thou hast been instructed (or 
which thou wast taught by word of mouth).” 

After this careful research, Luke pusitively de- 
clares that the mother of Jesus was a virgin when 
Jesus was born and that Joseph was not the father 
of Jesus (cf. 3:23) but that Jesus was conceived of 
the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. 
We have every right to assume the honesty and 
good faith of Matthew and Luke in their record of ° 
the Virgin Birth. 


oF JESUS CHRIST 101 


Wuy NARRATIVES ARE DENIED 


Why then, may we ask, do the critics deny the 
genuineness and trustworthiness of these narratives? 
Some assert that the narratives are contradictory. 
A careful reading of them does not bear out this 
statement. Dr. Orr ‘mentions twelve points of 
agreement between the two records, which are some- 
what as follows: (1) That Jesus was born in the 
days of Herod; (2) that He was conceived of the 
Holy Spirit; (3) that He was born of the Virgin 
Mary; (4) that she was engaged to Joseph; (5) 
that Joseph was of the line of David; (6) of the 
city of Bethlehem; (7) that the child’s name should 
be Jesus; (8) that He was to be the Saviour of His 
people; (9) that Joseph knew beforehand of Mary’s 
condition and its cause; (10) that knowing her 
condition he finally took her to be his wife, and as- 
sumed paternal responsibilities for her child; (11) 
that visions and supernatural revelations accom- 
panied the announcement of the conception of Jesus; 
(12) that Joseph and Mary with the young child 
went to reside in Nazareth. Certainly both the 
Evangelists are agreed in the main facts of the 
story. , 

Perhaps it is fair to say that the assumptions of 
science are responsible for the rejection of these 
narratives by some. It is a presupposition in mod- 
ern biological study that nothing of the nature of 
miracle can take place. The supernatural is ruled 


102 THE VirGIN BirtH 


out of all modern scientific thinking. The Virgin 
Birth chapters are filled with matters miraculous 
and supernatural. For this reason, therefore, the 
modern mind would reject them. But after all, 
you may ask what does science, biology, and the 
modern mind know of life? What do they know of 
life’s source? Nothing. Even evolution deals only 
with the development of life. Biology cannot tell 
us how life begins. It cannot tell us how the bones 
of a child are formed in the womb of a mother. 
Science cannot create life; it cannot even give scent 
to a flower. Why, then, should the man of science 
be proud and put himself up as a iudge of the 
Scriptures? 


Two books have been written by critics, one on 
the Gospel of Matthew and its Explanation, and the 
other on the Gospel of Luke and its Explanation. 
The volume on Matthew begins with chapter three, 
chapters one and two being omitted. The volume 
on Luke begins with chapter three, chapters one 
and two, containing the story of the Virgin, are 
omitted. No explanation is offered for the omis- 
sion, no reason is given. These critics have simply, 
on their own initiative, and without reasonable cause, 
omitted them. 

It has been well said that the rejection of the Vir- 
gin Birth is “a mutilation of the Scripture without 
any warrant,” a contradiction to the continuous’ 
testimony of the Christian Church, a weakening of 


oF JESUS CHRIST 103 


the doctrine of the incarnation and a practical sur- 
render into the hand of those who hold the non- 
miraculous, purely humanitarian view of Christ— 
and all on insufficient grounds.” (Orr). 


CuTTING UP THE BIBLE 


The serious result of denying the supernatural in 
the Bible is readily seen when one remembers that 
almost the entire story of the life of Jesus is con- 
nected with the supernatural and the miraculous. 
Indeed, it is difficult to think of any phase of Jesus’ 
life apart from the miraculous. The four Gospel 
records which present us with the narrative and pic- 
ture of His wonderful life are certainly filled with 
the miraculous. For instance, there are eighty-nine 
chapters in the four Gospels. Were we to eliminate 
the miracles in the life of Jesus and all the super- 
natural events connected with them, we should have 
to eliminate fifty-two chapters of the eighty-nine, 
which would be equivalent to almost seven hundred 
verses. If we were then to eliminate from the Gos- 
pel records the discourses of Jesus which are built 
upon the supernatural—such for example as the 
sermon following the Feeding of the Five Thousand, 
which is recorded in each of the four Gospels; the 
Christological discourse following the healing of the 
man at the Pool of Bethesda, recorded in the 5th 
of John; the discourse leading up to and following 
the healing of the blind man in the eighth and ninth 


104 THE VircIn Birtr 


chapters of John; the sermon on Jesus as the resur- 
rection and the life, which follows. the raising of 
Lazarus from the dead, and others we might men- 
tion—we would have but a few pages of the four 
Gospels left to us. The critic might say, “Yes, I 
admit that there is very little left, but that little con- 
tains ‘the principles of the life of Jesus’ ” It may 
be in order to ask to what “principles” the critic re- 
fers and where are those principles incorporated? 
If the reply of the critic is that the principles are 
to be found in the few pages one holds in his hand, 
it is quite pertinent to ask what more authority or 
dependability is to be found in the record contained 
in such few pages any more than can be found in the 
many pages which have been discarded as untrust- 
worthy and untrue because containing the super- 
natural? The result of this method of treating the 
records of the life of Jesus is unquestionably to 
leave us without a Saviour, Redeemer, Teacher 
or Example. 


~ PHOTOMOUNT 


PAMPHLET BINDER 
. PAT. NO, 








877188 

_ Manufactured by 
GAYLORD BROS. Inc. 
Syracuse, N. Y. 
Stockton, Calif. 


Date Due 


PRINTED|IN U.S.A, 


BS2423 .1.E92 ¢.2 
Why I believe in the virgin birth of 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


AMM 


1 1012 00013 2557 





